Mr. Speaker, I should like to commence on a somewhat personal note by first conveying to you my congratulations. You will understand that it is a special privilege for me, as a person who began at the same time as you did 22 years ago, to congratulate you on this great distinction which has been accorded to you.

I am probably expressing the sentiments of all hon. members, as well as the general public, when I say at the outset that everyone was looking forward to this debate with great expectations. Everyone was looking forward with great expectations to the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader will concede that I am not being unkind to him when I say that he did not measure up to those expectations. [Interjections.]

At least you have an audience this time. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is afraid of becoming an NP supporter. [Interjections.] Every objective observer will, in his assessment of what happened yesterday, inevitably conclude that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—and I understand his problem in this regard—did nothing more than present this House with an agglomeration and repetition of platitudes. One cannot but conclude that the hon. the Leader and his party lack a factual understanding of this country and its circumstances. What is inevitable in forming an overall impression of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party is that they want to plot a course of constitutional development for South Africa which bears no relationship to the factual position of this society, which is constitutionally unattainable, and which must lead to chaos and disorder in this country. It is a fact that the models which the hon. the Leader and his party are propagating for this country represent nothing but examples of failures in other parts of the world, in Africa as well.

Where has the model which you are holding up to us worked?

In South Africa.

Here in South Africa, where you also find yourself.

Yes, here in South Africa, where it has brought with it a greater measure of stability and order than in any comparable country in the world. [Interjections.] Sir, if I could be afforded an opportunity to do so, I should like to reply to the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. the Leader and his party are unable to free themselves from the image which exists of him and his group, i.e. that they represent a small far-left group of people who seek to gain advantage by referring to South Africa in a malicious way, preferably abroad. The conclusion is that the opinion of the outside world and the opinions of people of colour are more important than the opinions of the voters who brought them here.

That mud-slinging will no longer get you anywhere. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting for the hon. the Leader of the party and hon. members of his party to tell the other population groups of this country that it is in their interest, too, that the position of the Whites in South Africa be consolidated.

White domination.

But never, in or outside this House, have I heard the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party colleagues acting as champions of the rights of this group as well.

In that case you were not listening.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition came forward with a completely transparent attempt here to project an image of himself as the reasonable statesman, that person who does not wish to indulge in petty politicking. But immediately afterwards he began to do precisely what he had said he wished to avoid. I understand his dilemma, for he has to bear in mind the reprehensible methods adopted by his party and the publications which support him when they had to offer the voters alternative choices on principles. What did they do? They identified grievances or alleged grievances because they preferred to have a protest vote against the Government rather than a vote for their policy. [Interjections.] There is no one in this House or elsewhere in this country who thinks that it is possible to maintain the political status quo. However, if we want to plot a course of development for ourselves and if that course is to be constitutional, there are certain prerequisites which must apply in regard to our approach, inter alia, that we must have a factual grasp of the circumstances of this country, that we must conjure up for ourselves a factual image of the population structure of this country, that we must ensure that we have a perception of the intensity, of the emotions which reside in a society such as that in South Africa.

Secondly it requires that we must obtain a factual image of our country’s position in Africa and in the world, and that we must have a clear image of the mechanism we wish to apply in order to escape the status quo, as well as of the method or the programme of action we wish to apply to improve society. To be able to do so, we must have a factual grasp of what is an attainable goal and objective in South African society and politics. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is nodding in agreement. Therefore he agrees with me. I should now like to deal with this matter on the basis of certain fundamental premises.

†The hon. the Prime Minister said that White people in this country would have to change or die. But this does not presuppose the abdication of power, but it does imply a meaningful division in so many fields of endeavour as is possible. I submit that the posture of South Africa, the posture of this Government, is not insensitive to what has happened in Africa. We understand that White bastions do not exist any more in Angola, Mozambique and in Zimbabwe and we appreciate the fact that the anti-colonial wars have been won, not on a battlefield, but in the political chambers of the world by Black nationalism. But we also understand that there are many States in Africa, thus including Southern African, that appreciate the threat and the danger of communism to pro-capitalism, pro-Christian and orderly governments. Therefore I submit in all modesty that yesterday when the hon. the Prime Minister participated in this debate he gave us an example of the fact that the strategy of this Government directs its efforts under these particular circumstances to the international, the regional and the domestic arenas and issues. But what we do not seem to understand, or do not seem to be able to get across to hon. members on the other side, is that when a country is in a process of transformation—and there is nobody that disputes the fact that we represent such a country—the conflict potential is high, on the one hand because of fear of certain people and on the other hand because of expectations of other groups. Therefore it seems to be a prerequisite that, if this process is to proceed, we would have to understand that we can only proceed in an atmosphere of stability and order. I should like to underscore one point, namely that the South African Government will not fail in its duty to maintain law and order. This must not be interpreted as another hard line of control or oppression. It is the only answer, I submit, to the people who follow policies of confrontation.

*I have said that no political party in this country believes that the monopoly of political power can be vested in the hands of one group only. What is true is that there are fundamental differences between our premises in respect of what an attainable goal could be, taking into account these premises. Where we differ fundamentally is our perception of South African society and the factual image we have formed of it. That is why I want to submit that of all the principal factual images which we have to clarify for ourselves, one of the most important is specifically the factual image of the circumstances of this country and the methods required to reform and transform it so that it can comply with the fundamental premises to which I have referred. I submit that this is the most important factual image we have to examine. It is unnecessary for me to furnish this hon. House or hon. members with any details as regards the population structure of this country, the ethnic groupings of the population which are an essential part of our society, the various stages of development or degree of development of the various population groups, or their differences and approaches in respect of institutions and structures of power to regulate a society. In brief, Sir, any party which attempts to form a factual image of South Africa and which does not take the existence of these groups, their different and divergent aspirations, their character traits fully into account, is not forming an image of reality, but evading it.

Sir, so many people are inclined to compare South Africa with other countries, to compare South Africa with Western countries and then in their comparison, in their assessment and their condemnation, to pass judgment if we do not measure up to the standards and practices which exist in Western countries. I submit that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was guilty of doing this, for if one listened to him he depicted nothing but the views of a Western country’s sociologist in his argument. Although the hon. the Leader and his party pay lip-service to the concept of multinationalism, of pluralism, and scatter this term about undefined in their speeches, I submit today—and I challenge hon. members to deny this—that their social view of South Africa is nothing but that which applied in Western Europe during the 19th century. The hon. the Leader and his party may squirm as much as they like, but they cannot escape from their own heritage, which is a liberal philosophy with the emphasis on individual freedoms and rights. When I read the hon. member’s speech, the fundamental standpoint emanating from it is to be found and is vested in that very philosophy, and because of this approach and this philosophy the hon. the Leader and his party cannot understand that the crucial question, the crucial problem for South Africa is to reconcile the conflicting aspirations of widely divergent groups and peoples. Because of this philosophy they do not realize that we in this country must consistently take the reality of the population grouping in our country as the point of departure for any future constitutional dispensation and that this must form the foundation for any model which is attainable in this country. The tragedy is that the philosophy of the hon. members, and consequently their model, is alien to the South African situation and circumstances.

The best example of the unrealism with which hon. members opposite approach this question is inherent in the emphasis they place on individual civil rights. They want to give individuals civil rights instead of realizing that in our complicated society one can give greater content to the civil rights of the group and the continued existence of the groups. In exactly the same way as political rights, civil rights in South Africa, whether we like it or not, must be dealt with on a group basis. If we cannot do this, we destroy the rights of everyone.

You referred to group units …

If the hon. member gives me an opportunity to do so, I shall come to that for I should like to reply to the questions which were put by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Let us examine for a moment the appeals of the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for civil rights for all the inhabitants of South Africa and the basis on which he advocated this should be fulfilled and implemented. When one examines this, one must bear in mind that civil rights, as he referred to it, are a First World concept. I think he agrees with me in this regard. For this reason one can understand this only in its Western connotation. If full civil rights were to be granted to all South Africans, it could only mean that everyone would immediately have to enjoy the same political privileges—and therefore the franchise—and that everyone would immediately have to be in a position to lay the same and equal claim to government services. Full civil rights—these are what the hon. leader and his party are advocating—for all South Africans can only mean “one man, one vote” in a unitary state.

You people therefore reject full citizenship.

The hon. member could really give me a chance to continue.

Since the hon. the Leader is an apologist for these civil rights, the inference is necessarily and inevitably, despite his protest, that this is the model of what his party wants in South Africa.

Instead of this unrealistic approach which the PFP propagates for the political and judicial problems of our country, the NP comes forward with an approach which is related to the reality of South Africa, an approach which seeks to make the grouping of the population the building stone for a future constitutional dispensation. I want to emphasize this: This party stands or falls by the standpoint that the political and juristic problems of South Africa’s inhabitants must be approached and solved on a group basis; not because the one is inferior to the other, but because they exist and react as groups.

If this does not happen, this country will be added to the list of failures in Africa—yet another African country. Only when once one understands this does one realize why it is impossible to apply unadapted Western political and juristic standards and practices in South Africa and why we have to create unique formulas for our unique situation.

We accept the hard reality of differing groups which are in various stages of development and which maintain differing values and priorities, while adhering to differing traditions. The hon. the Leader said that it was ostensibly one of the problems of the hon. the Prime Minister that he was leading a party which upheld certain political traditions. But the problem of his party is in fact that it has no political tradition. His party and he represent an agglomeration of the remains of parties which disintegrated, and I want to tell him that without a political tradition he forfeits the right to participate in the working out of a future.

The NP respects the group identities and ideals of the population groups in this country and perceives as the primary task of politics in our country the balanced and fair accommodation of the aspirations of the various population groups.

I now want to refer to the various objectives, Sir, for just as we differ as regards our factual grasp of the existing situation, we also differ in respect of what is attainable. What do the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party regard as politically attainable in the South African situation? I concede that it is the easiest thing to act as the hon. the Leader and his party are doing and to say that if they were to come into power—may Heaven forbid—they would use their statutory power to seek the most glorious, the most noble objectives. The tendency of political parties to outbid one another as regards the utopias they wish to create is as old as politics itself. But I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the essence of responsible political practice is to propagate a goal which is attainable in the society for which it is intended. Political practices which are not attainable are politically irresponsible and dishonest because they foment expectations which cannot be satisfied. I have heard many accusations, but I want to ask the hon. the Leader and his party this question: Who of us know the point where the two lines, the one line which represents what the one group is prepared to give, and the other line which represents what other groups are prepared to accept as fulfilment of their minimum expectations, converge? He knows and I know that there is no logical answer to that and that it cannot be measured with an exact criterium.

Sir, surely it is not practicable to advocate in our society what the hon. leader is championing. The hon. leader seeks to establish a multiracial Parliament which will guarantee the interests of minority groups within the framework of a unitary state. I submit that this is unattainable in our society. What is the mechanism by means of which this objective can be achieved? The mechanism he recommends is a national convention which will deliberate on a continuous basis until such time as they have achieved an agreement. Then it must still be approved by Parliament. Quite apart from any other questions, how does the hon. the Leader suppose that a national convention, constituted on a completely different basis to that of this Parliament, will succeed in arriving at a consensus which will be acceptable to Parliament? In that case how long will he wait before granting civil rights to people?

This cannot happen unless Parliament abdicates.

Yes, it cannot happen unless Parliament abdicates.

In contrast to this the object of the NP is to develop constitutional institutions in an evolutionary way and by a process of deliberation, each of which will consist of elected representatives of every population group in this country. Owing to the heterogeneous groupings in our country, however, something of this nature is not easy to achieve. With the establishment of the President’s Council we took an historic step, in which the hon. member and his party wanted no part. By doing this the Government gave tangible proof of the fact that the present political dispensation cannot and must not be retained and that the creation of a new dispensation must receive attention. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition laid down four prerequisites for a new constitution, if I remember correctly. His first two points were concerned with South Africa’s own Constitution, if I understood him correctly. By this he implied that in accordance with his party’s policy the constitution he was advocating should also be the constitution for the independent and national States, if I interpret him correctly. I see he agrees with me. The Government does not envisage a single constitution for South Africa and for the Black nations, but a number of constitutions. Even when sovereign independent States agree on a basis of co-operation at confederal level and an interstate treaty is incorporated in that agreement, it is still not a constitution for that confederation. The hon. the Leader’s first prerequisite for his constitution was that it should be the result of deliberation by everyone.

†This is a very pious sentiment, but let us judge it against the background of that party’s actions in the past.

*When the President’s Council was established—and the hon. leader was a member of the Constitution Committee—he endorsed the concept of negotiation as a method of arriving at a constitution, did he not?

Among all the components of the population.

Yes, among all the components of the population, because the recommendation related to all the components of the population. [Interjections.] Wait, just give me a chance. I say this because it was a package proposal which was offered: a President’s Council and a Black Council. But what did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition do? The apologist who has stated he would support the hon. the Prime Minister in his attempts, rejected the package. He not only rejected the President’s Council; he rejected the package. In other words, what was he prepared to do? The hon. leader, who purports to be a reasonable statesman, rejected the principle because he could not agree with the method of co-operation.

That is an outrageous statement.

Is it not a fact that consultation is the trademark of this Government’s actions, to a greater extent than those of any previous Government? This behaviour of the hon. the Leader and his party has helped to wreck the principle which he is advocating, namely continuous negotiation. And history will condemn them for this, as it will those persons on whose behalf he professed to be speaking.

However, it goes further than that. His constitution must make provision for common citizenship. Independent sovereign States exist and their existence cannot be reconciled with one citizenship for Southern Africa. Citizenship implies certain things, e.g. the franchise. Because Black nations exercise their franchise in separate structures, they acquire citizenship of their own States when they become independent.

They have no choice.

They do have a choice, but I do not wish to go into that now with the hon. member.

The Government realizes that when States become independent this does not represent a parting of the ways, and because it understands the close connection between our fate and theirs and the mutual interests which exist, it introduced the concept of confederal co-operation. The hon. leader went further and said there could not be any formal or statutory discrimination; there can only be informal, non-statutory discrimination. Surely this is a reasonable deduction. The Government has adopted a standpoint. When does discrimination occur most frequently? When people who have reached different levels of development must compete against each other on an equal footing. I challenge the hon. leader and his party to say that they object to development aid—financial, technical and otherwise—being granted to certain population groups in the country to increase their bargaining power in a complex society. But the hon. leader’s statement must be seen against the background of his party’s policy, and in terms of that policy his statement simply means the negation of multinationalism and the negation of the existence of minority groups and their rights. To recognize the existence of majority national groups and minority groups by way of statute is to recognize a basic reality. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not wish to have any statutory definition of population and population groups, how on earth does he wish to identify minority groups? How will he protect them?

They will identify themselves.

Sir, I cannot understand how the Opposition wishes to deny this fact without admitting their belief in universal franchise in a unitary state. This is the crux of the argument. The hon. leader goes overseas and advocates a federation and when he comes here his speeches cannot be interpreted in any other way than that he is advocating a unitary state with a general franchise. Let us give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt. A federation in which universal franchise applies and where the Whites in every region will be in the minority is unacceptable to this Government and is unattainable in our circumstances, because it will lead to the destruction of all the rights of all races and groups.

Sir, I now come to an important statement of which the hon. members should take note. The hon. leader advocates an independent judiciary as the final arbitrator between the State and the individual. But what is of importance here—and this is how far he takes this statement—is that he said the following (Hansard, 3 August)—

What is the hon. leader saying here? He is saying the South African society is like that. That is what he is saying. Now he must not take it amiss if we allege that the expectations which they are creating with their choice of words could set us on the road to revolution.

I allege that in no comparable society has more been done for the various population groups than has been done in this country over the past 30 years. I do not believe that this society is perfect …

How can it be with you in it?

It is however perfect enough to tolerate that hon. member. I challenge any hon. member to show us a better dispensation for people of colour in any comparable country than the one which exists in South Africa. Why must my department and I take steps to protect our borders from being an influx of persons from other countries? Do they want to come to this country because it is so unjust? Do they want to come here because living conditions are so bad here and liberty is so restricted?

They come here for economic reasons.

Who creates the economic climate?

You impede it.

Order!

Have you never heard of stability?

The Government’s standpoint regarding the judiciary is very simple, namely that any power of the courts to test the laws of the highest legislative body in the country, will bring the judiciary into politics, will politicize it. I maintain that the conflict of interests which exists in the country between races, between groups, should be defused by the legislative and executive bodies. To fix all our hopes on the judiciary will turn the courts into a political football, and this will in fact jeopardize the impartiality the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is advocating.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked four questions. He asked whether the citizenship of the Blacks in South Africa is different to the citizenship of the Whites, Coloureds and Asians. Surely he knows that the Blacks acquire citizenship of independent Black States when those states become independent. Surely he knows that it is a part of the Government’s solution to the constitutional problems of our country that more than one citizenship must exist.

That is no solution.

The fundamental mistake made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party is that they do not recognize the national pride of peoples. The hon. leader and his party do not understand that nations can take pride in their existence as a nation. He has divested himself of his own.

The Blacks do not want to be South Africans …

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must stop making constant interjections.

I maintain that it is part of this party’s solution in order to bring about self-determination in South Africa more equitably. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what the various charters of the parties which he represents have stated in respect of citizenship and civil rights. The Government does not discriminate hurtfully in creating separate citizenships. I want to allege that in a multinational situation such as ours this is one of the ways in which the quality and content of citizenship can best be enhanced.

The hon. Leader asked me why, if there is no discrimination in regard to Black citizenship, the President’s Council can make proposals concerning White, Coloured and Indian citizenship, but not Black citizenship.

Good point.

Let us see if it is in fact a good point. I find it difficult to accept that an educated man such as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in an important debate like this, can ask a question which is invalid because it is based on an incorrect assumption. Even the most superficial study—and he really must reprimand the person who undertook it for him …

It was Nic Olivier. [Interjections.]

The most superficial study of our politics must surely reveal that the President’s Council—in the words of section 106(1)A of the Constitution Act—may advise the State President as it sees fit on any matter, other than draft legislation, which in the opinion of that council is in the public interest. The council therefore has a discretion and the question therefore falls away owing to the ignorance of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I wish to put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that there are no areas inside or outside South Africa which can serve as territorial bases for the promotion of all the interests of Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics. For this reason the Government accepts that, with regard to these population groups, specific structures will have to be created for them to manage their own affairs and to accept joint responsibility in matters of common interest. I cannot however understand the hon. the Leader’s very next question. He wanted to know whether this was sharing of power or division of power. I want to ask him whether the real point at issue is not whether this could lead to a just dispensation for everyone. Is this not the test? My party has no problems with this. My party accepts that over and above having authority and self-determination over those things which are identifiably theirs, people living in the same national States must accept joint responsibility in regard to matters of common interest. My party has put forward certain proposals which are contained in a draft bill which was tabled in this House and which has also been submitted as evidence to the President’s Council. In contrast the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has to this day not yet given evidence on his proposals before the President’s Council.

But you people have not done so either.

Oh yes, we have. We submitted the draft bill to the Constitutional Committee as evidence. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, do you know what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is doing? He refuses to participate in the activities of the President’s Council. He even suspended some of his members; although I maintain that his behaviour in that instance did not represent his personal standpoint. I have reason to believe that his caucus forced him to take that action. I will bring him proof of this. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition addressed the congress of the Coloured executive committees and told them to which matters the President’s Council should give attention. He sent them as witnesses to the President’s Council, the institution he rejected and wished to make suspect.

His methods of leadership.

Are laws necessary to maintain a person’s identity or group awareness? No, laws are not necessary for this. Laws are however necessary with regard to those things to which he himself pays lip-service, namely to identify persons so that minority groups can be protected. In the second place laws are necessary to restrict the consequences of the behaviour of certain persons. The fact that murder is punishable has not led to people ceasing to commit murder. Is the hon. Leader therefore advocating the abolition of punitive measures? That is undoubtedly the logical deduction I have to make. We can score off one another politically. If we wish, we can also get the better of one other by means of political arguments. If we wish, we can reflect an image of dissention, but I accuse the hon. Leader of the Opposition of one thing, and that concerns what he said about Government officials in his speech in Bonn.

Were you also there?

No, but I saw a speech which was not for circulation and which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says he is not ashamed of.

Do you all walk around with tape recorders?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he had caused the speech to be circulated. I do not know why the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition is being so difficult. What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? He said that there are Government officials who have to carry out the policy of the Government. This is true. As far as I know Government officials all over the world are like this. But what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said was that he understood that 80% of them were Afrikaans-speaking. I want to ask him what he means by this if he is not, in an objectionable way, causing a rift between the language groups.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister’s speech was divided into two parts. One was the attempt by the hon. the Minister, as he has done before, to present PFP policy in the terms that suit him in order to knock it down. He evaded the realities of that policy and merely put up “Aunt Sallys” so that he could look good as he knocked them down. I do not intend following him in that particular exercise. It is becoming corny; it is becoming hackneyed. I think it was he who said we must stop trying to catch flies and we must start dealing with the realities of South Africa.

The other part of the hon. the Minister’s speech, which was much more interesting, was an attempt in his own way to give some philosophical content to the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday. He started promisingly. He used truisms like “we cannot maintain the status quo”. That is correct. He went on to state another truism: “Power cannot remain in the hands of any one group.” He also used the truism “We must take account of the realities of the South African situation.” But, when he defined these realities, he converted these truisms into the typical clichés which he and his supporters use. He used the phrase: “There must be a meaningful division of power” and he went on to add “in as many fields as possible”. Let us analyse South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister’s plan was a negation of the realities of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister’s plan did not take into account the integrated nature of South Africa, namely an integrated economy, an integrated labour force, an integrated population where even in his Coloured, White and Asian areas of South Africa the majority of the economically active and permanently domiciled people are going to be Black and, according to Government policy, they are going to be citizens of a foreign country where they do not work or live. That is the reality. The reality is that one can talk about self-determination in these absolute terms as the hon. the Minister likes to do, yet he knows that the more the South African economy becomes integrated and the more our society becomes shared, whether it be in sport, entertainment, education, labour, community services, economic development or national security, so the fields in which the principles of separated power and of self-determination can be applied become fewer and smaller, and the areas in which we are compelled to find solutions on the basis of the sharing of power and the sharing of decision-making becomes bigger. That is the reality of the position. I want to put this question to the hon. the Minister who has just sat down. He talked about the division of power in as many areas as possible. Let us take all the important areas of power in the Republic of South Africa. Can there be division of power in respect of labour? With all that hon. Minister of Manpower is doing—and all credit to him—does he actually believe that there can be a division of power as far as labour is concerned? Will he allow integrated trade unions and still talk of the division of power? Do hon. members opposite believe that there can be a division of power in respect of transport services and communication services in South Africa? Of course they cannot. Can there be a division of power in respect of economic affairs or consumer relationships?

I put these questions to those hon. members. Can there be a division of power in respect of taxation or fiscal policy? Can there be a division of power in respect of foreign affairs? Can there be a division of power in respect of the defence of South Africa as a whole? Can there be a division of power in the whole sphere of national security? Mr. Speaker, those hon. gentlemen are running away from reality and that reality is the fact that there is one integrated country here. [Interjections.] Yes, there are groups, there are traditions, there are differences, but nevertheless, in all the important areas where power and conflict have to be resolved, we have to take the necessary steps on the basis of power sharing, whether we like it or not. It is easy to say: Let us divide; let us have a separation of power, but that is not the reality. We have to find a solution within the concept of trying to find agreement in the areas where we have to share power.

I want now to return to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister which he made yesterday. In fact, the hon. the Prime Minister went back to the days of Dr. Verwoerd.

*What we thought was a new idea of confederation is no more than the old commonwealth idea of Dr. Verwoerd. It is the same old story of 22 years ago—a free association of sovereign independent states. This is what the Prime Minister told us. He went back to that old hackneyed policy of Dr. Verwoerd. [Interjections.] He said there could be no common South African citizenship.

†The hon. the Prime Minister is ignoring the realities of South Africa and I want to point out other fatal flaws in his plan.

In the first instance he ignored the obvious flaw that we have an integrated society. Secondly, the hon. the Prime Minister’s plan entrenches and increases the imbalance of wealth and resources among the component parts of his confederation or federation. The hon. the Prime Minister says to the Black citizens of South Africa that as far as his Government is concerned, the only way that they can obtain political rights at national level is to renounce both their South African citizenship and their moral claim to a share in the resources and opportunities of South Africa as a whole. That is what the hon. the Prime Minister says. He says: Renounce your citizenship, renounce your claim to sharing in the resources as a whole and then you can have some form of statutory sovereignty. The hon. the Prime Minister’s plan does not make any constitutional provision for an equitable sharing of our total South African resources. All this is going to do is to entrench and widen the gap between the economic have’s and have-not’s in South Africa and, I believe, with disastrous consequences for all of us in South Africa.

We listened to the hon. the Prime Minister in order to ascertain whether he had some plan or other which the people of South Africa could use for the future. However, his plan was not the product of negotiation among the various groups in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister says that we must negotiate with all the groups but his plan is the product of the White National Party which is presented to Black South Africans on the basis of “take it or leave it”. The hon. the Prime Minister said that he was not prepared to accept any other solution. He is saying to Black South Africans: This is our product: take it or leave it! Why does he not tell us to what extent he is prepared to negotiate to change the fundamentals of his confederal plan? The hon. the Prime Minister must know that no attempt at constitution-making which is not the product of negotiation has any hope whatsoever of succeeding in resolving the conflict that exists or finding a basis for coexistence in this country.

I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister—and I hope I do not say this unfairly and unkindly to him—that I see the hon. the Prime Minister’s plan as a device to grant the homelands de jure sovereignty while at the same time maintaining de facto White political power over the whole of South Africa. [Interjections.] That is all it amounts to—de jure black sovereignty but de facto white political power.

That is a scandalous statement to make.

That is what it is, Mr. Speaker. But there is another critical ingredient of the whole process of constitution-making in regard to which the hon. the Prime Minister …

No one but you can make a remark like that. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister was noticeably silent on this aspect during his one hour and forty minute speech yesterday. To talk of political co-operation within a confederation or any other scheme when the majority of the people within the confederation continue to live their daily lives under a policy of apartheid and discrimination is quite ridiculous. Getting rid of discrimination is a prerequisite to achieving any political co-operation or to establishing any new political dispensation in South Africa.

This is what South Africa was looking for yesterday when the hon. the Prime Minister spoke. I echo the view of thousands, tens of thousands, millions of South Africans who ask: What has happened to the hon. the Prime Minister? When one listened to his speech yesterday one found that he was back with Dr. Verwoerd’s constitutional fantasies. He was back with the half-baked 1977 constitutional plan that was ridiculed and rejected by anybody who could understand that plan. The people and we ask: What has happened to the hon. the Prime Minister? Why is he not giving us a clear-cut lead based on the realities of a multiracial South Africa?

We ask the hon. the Prime Minister: What about his commitment to get rid of race discrimination in South Africa? Where is that decisiveness and that idealism which he seemed to display one or two years ago? What about the ringing phrases of certain hon. Ministers? The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said “We shall do everything in our power to move away from discrimination based on race or colour.” The hon. the Minister of Palm Springs … [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development did not simply say that we should move away. This is in fact what he said speaking on behalf of the Government—

Where are the laws to remove discrimination from the Statute Book? We think of the hon. the Prime Minister’s “adapt of die” speech. We think of that dramatic speech which he made at the Carlton Centre during which he said—

What has happened to the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet? Where is that spirit of determination which gripped the imagination of the people of South Africa two years ago? I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister what has happened to him. Why is he vaccilating? Why is he indecisive? Why is he backpedalling on the undertakings he gave the people of South Africa? This was not the style of the hon. the Prime Minister in years gone by. He is not known for indecisiveness or vaccilation. We have known him for a long time in South African politics. He was not indecisive when he fought to get the Coloured people off the common roll. He was not indecisive when he fought to get their representatives kicked out of Parliament. He was not indecisive when he fought for the Immorality Act or the Mixed Marriages Act or the Group Areas Act or the Population Registration Act.

You were not indecisive when you fought against those pieces of legislation.

The hon. the Prime Minister was not indecisive when as Minister of Coloured Affairs he proclaimed District Six a White area and started the process of ejecting the Coloureds from that area. What has happened to the hon. the Prime Minister? What has happened to the commitments which the public of South Africa believed he had given to them?

He has lost his nerve!

When is he going to get rid of discrimination? We ask: Do the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government have a credible and viable conceptual framework within which peaceful progress can be achieved for all the citizens of South Africa?

Harry, do you like it in the front bench?

[Inaudible.]

Order!

I want to look at a few of the areas where I believe the conceptual framework of the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government has collapsed. Let us look at the field of social relationships. I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that he has allowed apartheid to crumble as a principle of policy, but he is not prepared to put the principle of freedom of association in its place. The result of this is that Government policy in the field of social relationships has become a messy compromise. Apartheid is not dead; apartheid is not even dying. It lives on, not as a matter of principle as far as that party is concerned but as the Government’s miserable response to racial prejudice and racial bigotry in South Africa.

In the economic field the Government has declared its commitment to the free enterprise economic system, and yet it is not willing to face up to the fact that the free enterprise economic system cannot function within a legislative framework based on apartheid and race discrimination.

In the field of politics the Government remains committed, as the hon. the Minister indicated, to a concept of separate decision-making in a society in which the Government knows that in almost all the important fields where decisions have to be taken, such decisions cannot be taken except on the basis of joint decision-making and power sharing.

We believe that the hon. the Prime Minister’s failure to grasp the nettle of power sharing and of joint decision-making in matters which affect equally the lives of all South Africans will in fact go down in history as his greatest failure, and this failure constitutes the greatest danger to peace and stability in South Africa.

Something else has emerged in the course of the past while. It appears that in regard to matters on which the hon. the Prime Minister’s party is deeply divided, he is trying to shield behind the President’s Council. He is evading his responsibility as the leader of the Government of South Africa. Take the instance of District Six. Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Prime Minister proclaimed District Six White, he did not need a multi-million standing advisory committee of nominated people, some of Cabinet rank.

I did not proclaim it.

The hon. the Prime Minister announced the proclamation.

I did not proclaim it and neither did I announce it. I followed up the proclamation.

This was on 14 February 1968. He was the Minister responsible at that time …

No, you are wrong.

He made that decision. They declared it hite as a matter of Government policy. He does not need the President’s Council to tell him that that was immoral and wrong. [Interjections.]

The Government has changed its mind on parts of Woodstock and Wynberg and on Maitland Garden Village. Why has it not got the guts to change its mind in regard to District Six as well? Why does it not do this of its own volition? Why does the Government not do the only honourable thing that it can do and that is to declare District Six open so that the Coloured people who were robbed of their properties can go back and live in that area once more? [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister can do that. He does not have to hide behind the President’s Council. He should do it as the leader of the Government.

He does not want to.

Mr. Speaker, take the issue of the municipal franchise. When the NP stripped the Coloured people and others who were on the municipal voters’ roll of their political rights they did not have a commission to tell them what to do. They did not have nominated members of a President’s Council. The Government knows that it is politically dangerous and morally wrong to have hundreds of thousands of people paying municipal rates and taxes and yet not having any right to control the spending of that money. The Government knows this is wrong. The hon. the Prime Minister does not have to carry on playing a charade with the President’s Council on this matter. I say the hon. the Prime Minister should have the courage to lead South Africa, to lead his party and to say that those people must be restored to the municipal voters’ roll.

I want to refer to the issue of political rights at national level, and here I want to deal very seriously with the hon. the Prime Minister because he dealt with this yesterday. I refer to his attitude towards the President’s Council. The President’s Council cannot operate in a vacuum as far as the principles of Government policy are concerned. At the end of the last session he was quite blunt with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he asked—

The hon. the Prime Minister said: The reply is “no”. He rejected this as a matter of principle. Will he also reject as a matter of principle a recommendation that Blacks who live permanently outside the homelands can be included in some new constitutional deal, together with Coloureds, Asians and Whites?

Yes. That is no news to the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister now opens the door for direct political representation of Blacks outside the homelands together with Coloureds and Asians at a national level in South African politics.

He rejects it.

He rejects it? He said “yes”.

He accepted it. [Interjections.]

Did he accept it? Will the hon. the Prime Minister accept a recommendation that urban Blacks who live permanently outside the homelands be included together with Whites, Coloureds and Asians in a new political dispensation?

No, definitely not! [Interjections.]

The next point is that the hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday … [Interjections.] … that he rejected the concept of Coloured people on a common voters’ roll. That is what he said yesterday.

But I dealt with it yesterday. You are talking a lot of nonsense.

Does he reject, as a matter of principle, a recommendation that Coloureds and Asians be elected to this Parliament on a basis other than the common voters’ roll? Would he be prepared to allow this?

You are knocking down your own Aunt Sallys.

No, I am asking the hon. the Prime Minister a question. Does he reject that as a matter of principle or does he not? He rejects Blacks on the President’s Council and he rejects Coloureds on the common roll, and when one asks him whether he rejects the presence of Coloureds and Indians in this Parliament, he has nothing to say.

I dealt with it in answer to a question put to me by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Once again the hon. the Prime Minister is evading a fundamental question. Is he or is he not prepared to see Coloureds and Indians in this House, even if not on a common roll?

Not under present circumstances.

Then under what circumstances?

Then I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister has an obligation to this country to say under what circumstances he would be prepared to have Coloureds and Indians in this Parliament in the future.

Andries is sitting there now.

This is an area of fundamental indecision on the part of the Government. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that his party is torn from stem to stem by this issue, and that is why he says “Not under present circumstances”. We therefore ask him: Under what circumstances?

I dealt with that yesterday.

No, the hon. the Prime Minister is evading the issue. [Interjections.]

You are not here to cross-examine me. Get on with your speech.

This Government, by its vacillation, indecision and backtracking, is contributing to the conflict situation that is developing in South Africa. It is no use the hon. the Prime Minister blaming everybody else. He knows that if he really wants to look at the elements of conflict in South Africa, he has to look no further than at the inequality in services and opportunities that are available, the offensiveness of apartheid, the injustice of discrimination and the denial of political rights. He knows that commission after commission has pointed to the fact that race discrimination and apartheid are the prime factors that are polarizing South Africa and leading us in the direction of conflict.

The hon. the Prime Minister and his Government are losing their natural authority over the people of South Africa because natural authority has to be based on respect for the law and the administration and these have to be seen to be moral, just and necessary. As this Government loses its natural authority by continuing with laws that are unjust and immoral, it responds with administration that is severe on people, it resorts to more bannings, detention, threats and strong-arm action. As a result of this, we have a breakdown of effective administration on a broad front.

Other members on this side of the House will deal with various other aspects but I want to come now to the issue raised by the hon. member for Green Point. I am referring to the treatment of Blacks in the Western Cape in terms of the so-called “Coloured labour preference area”. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that this policy has collapsed as an administratively viable and morally defensible policy. It has failed in its purpose of trying to protect the Coloureds. It is strangling the economy of the Western Cape and reducing, rather than adding to, the opportunities for Coloured people to advance economically. It is adding to the burdens of Ciskei and Transkei by forcing a growing number of people to live in impoverishment in economically inactive areas. It is having a disastrous effect on the Black population of the Cape. What is more, however, I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister, who as Cape leader was the author of this plan, must know that the plan simply does not work. It is estimated that if there is a de jure Black population of 90 000 in the greater metropolitan area of the Peninsula, the de facto population is closer to 200 000. The fact is that many of the services in the private or public sector would not be able to function were it not for the so-called “illegals”.

Why “so-called”?

The construction industry would grind to a halt. Mitchell’s Plain would never have been built had it not been for these so-called “illegals”. So all that this policy is doing is to turn tens of thousands of people into statutory “illegals” and making them live their lives subject to the harassment of the Police and officials of the Department of Co-operation and Development.

In the circumstances, let this Government face up to the fact that the breaking of these laws carries with it no moral condemnation. People who are the victims of these laws have no respect for the laws and also lose all respect for the people who administer them. The raids and “klopjagte” that are carried out by the officials of the boards and the department are not effective instruments of policy. These raids and “klopjagte” are not contributing towards a solution. All they are doing is terrorizing a large section of the Cape Peninsula’s Black population. That is the effect of these raids. There is nothing more degrading and nothing more dehumanizing than the way in which these armed and uniformed agents of the Minister hunt down and round up the Black people in the Cape Peninsula. This degrading and inhuman behaviour is matched in callousness and cruelty only by the eviction of the Black women and their children from accommodation in which they were living and then, in the middle of the Cape winter, harassing them further by continuously pulling down the meagre shelter which they could find. All this happens because the Government stubbornly clings to a racist concept which does not work instead of facing up to the socio-economic realities which arise from the process of urbanization. Therefore, the Government’s policy in that particular area has collapsed. It is no longer viable and it is no longer morally defensible and it can only be forced through by the strong-arm action of the police and the agents of the hon. the Minister.

I have mentioned just this one example of the Government’s unwillingness to come to grips with the realities of modem South Africa, with the realities of urbanization and the reality of the need to get rid of discrimination. This inability of the Government pervades its whole policy and administration like a debilitating disease. Until such time as the Government is prepared to come to grips with the realities and is prepared to get rid of discrimination in a meaningful way, it will deserve not only the condemnation of the public of South Africa but also the censure of the House.

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was advocating, was nothing but the concept of a unitary State as a reality for South Africa. What I really hold against the hon. member, is that throughout his entire argument he apparently did not realize that in view of the attitude that he and his party are adopting, they begrudge the independence of the Black people of South Africa who have strived for independence and have obtained it. If any small state in Africa becomes independent, it is a good thing; if Lesotho becomes independent, it is a good thing; if other Black States become independent, it is well and good; however, if it is the South African Xhosas, Bophuthatswanas or Vendas, then it is wrong and the hon. member goes overboard as he did here this afternoon.

Sir, the hon. member’s leader supports him in this point of view. I should like to quote what the hon. the leader said, but first of all I must say that I have been a member of this House for many years and I do not think that this was one of the best speeches by the hon. the leader or by a Leader of the Opposition that I have heard in the House during the time that I have spent here. I do not know where the fault lies, but there is apparently something wrong somewhere.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition delivered a speech in Bonn—hon. members must bear in mind that this was when we expected him to choose to attend the Republic festival instead—and I quote from page 8 of his speech. If words have any meaning, the hon. the leader must tell us what the following words mean—

Sir, if this does not mean that the hon. the Leader says there what he apparently does not want to say in South Africa, viz. that they advocate that this Parliament should be turned into a multi-racial Parliament where Blacks will also be able to have a seat in a unitary State, then I do not know what the meaning of words is. The hon. members of the Opposition are shaking their heads violently now—I can even hear the pump kin-pips rattling.

The hon. the Leader went on to say—

If the hon. the Leader makes this type of statement in South Africa, it is one thing. However, when it is unfair and when one is entitled to call it into question, is when the Leader of the Opposition makes statements abroad like the statements with which the hon. the Prime Minister charged the hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday and like those that I am quoting here. If I had the time, I could have quoted other examples for hon. members from the speech which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition delivered there. After all, one expects a good patriot, no matter what his political views may be, to defend South Africa when he goes abroad in such a way that one may be proud of him and of the way in which he defends South Africa.

I told the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that they begrudge the strivings of the Black people. I shall go into this matter in more detail in a moment. It is not surprising then that even a Black leader like Chief Buthelezi makes certain statements. A report appeared in Die Burger entitled “Buthelezi los konvensie met Progge”. I do not want to deal with that here now. I am simply drawing attention to it. In The Cape Times of 10 June the following was said: “Convention idea suffers setback”. This is the PFP’s convention idea. If the Black leaders are even adopting this attitude towards the PFP, I think it is somewhat late in the day for the PFP to engage in a real struggle with the realities of South Africa, and therefore they should not deliver the type of speech here in the House that the hon. member for Sea Point delivered here this afternoon. For instance, Buthelezi did the following, amongst other things—

And these are his own words—

I read further—

What does he say about the National Party?

I am coming to that. The hon. member for Sea Point says that we, and he mentioned the hon. the Prime Minister by name, are apparently not taking the realities of South Africa into account. Let us just take a look at those realities that must be taken into account, realities that we have not only been taking into account in recent times, but which the National Party Government has been taking into account since it came into power. This is why it is still governing the country. The first reality is that South Africa is a microcosm. The fact is that in South Africa we have fourteen national groups, each of which can rightfully lay claim to self-determination and the maintenance of identity and national values, just as a nation in any other place in the world can do. Let me quote some figures with regard to the population groups in South Africa. There are 4 million Whites, 2½ million Coloureds, 800 000 Asiatics, 5 million Xhosas, 5 million Zulus, 2 million South Sothos, 2 million Tswanas, 2 million North Sothos, a Vi million Ndebeles, a ¼ million Vendas, 1 million Shangaans and Tsongas, ¾ million Swazis, a ½ million South Ndebeles and 202 000 other smaller groups. This gives a total of 28 million people in South Africa.

So there is no Black majority?

These are the harsh realities of South Africa. Does anyone want to stand up here and say that there is no Zulu King? Does anyone want to stand up here and say that there is not a President of the Transkei in the person of Kaizer Matan zima? Does anyone want to stand up here and say that there is no Chief Minister who leads the Zulus in the person of Chief Minister Buthelezi or that the different nations do not have their own leaders? One thinks of Dr. Phatudi of Lebowa and others. These are the harsh realities with which we in South Africa are faced and anyone who denies this, is denying the most basic reality of South African society.

The second reality is that ignoring this ethnic diversity is a potential source of conflict. The fact that there is such a diversity of national groups makes the situation extremely sensitive at the same time, regardless of any colour connotation that may enter into it. Denying the needs of nations, such as the maintenance of their own identity and the right to self-determination, as well as the fear of domination by one or more of the other national groups, is one of the surest ways of causing friction to arise between the nations, which will ultimately give rise to nothing but conflict in the worst degree.

Since I regularly have dealings with these Chief Ministers, and hold discussions with them weekly, almost daily, what is my reply to them with regard to the attitude that the PFP adopts here in the House and the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition abroad? What do I say when one Chief Minister after the other tells me that if the NP Government does not recognize the minority rights of his nation, he will have to seek elsewhere for recognition of his nation’s minority rights? With all due respect I must say that those hon. members do not know what they are talking about. They have no experience of the realities of the South African dispensation unless they speak to those Chief Ministers themselves and in this way form a concept of the strong national feeling that exists amongst the Zulu nation, amongst the Transkian nation and every other nation in South Africa, of the strong national feeling that really lives in their hearts. It is not a feeling that one can extinguish like the flame of a lamp. It is a reality.

The third reality is the inter-dependence of nations, because after all these nations cannot live in isolation. It is the economic reality of our daily existence in particular that makes contact between the individual nations absolutely essential and that emphasizes their inter-dependence too. This interdependence means, amongst other things, that today all the nations in this country are allied against Russian imperialism and the communist onslaught on South Africa. Without the recognition of these realities, there would have been a Babel of confusion and chaos in South Africa. It is my contention that the statement that I have made here now, is of absolutely cardinal, decisive importance for every hon. member in this House and for every resident of this country, regardless of his race or colour. That is why it is necessary for positive and definite action to be taken to try to defuse every situation that could give rise to conflict and to take the necessary measures to provide the guarantees by means of which every national group and every individual will be given the opportunity to maintain his own identity and his own right to self-determination and to develop his abilities to the full, with the goal throughout being the peaceful coexistence of the nations in South Africa, as we have seen it achieved with a great deal of success for more than 30 years under the government of the NP here in South Africa.

This situation, based on these realities, the NP Government has, over the years … Mr. Speaker, I sat and listened to the debate here once again this afternoon. Hon. members on the opposite side apparently have no conception of what the issues are for the NP Government and for the people of South Africa. Over the years we have laid down four principles in the political development of this country. Therefore, no one can expect us to depart from them, particularly when they are measured against the innumerable successes that have been achieved in South Africa over the past 30 years.

When I returned to South Africa in 1952 after I had completed my studies, and began to become involved in these things—this was still in the days of the late Dr. Verwoerd—many of these things were mere dreams.

Today they are nightmares.

Then they were simply visions. I experienced all of this, and today they have become reality and the successful application thereof, the peace and prosperity that has accompanied them, as well as the improvement in the quality of life for all people—White, Black, Coloured and Indian—is there for all to behold.

What are the four principles to which we have always adhered, to which the NP Government will adhere and from which it will not depart? The first is the ideal of multi-national development. Since 1948 this has taken shape and has become a reality. After all, hon. members have seen it turning into a reality. Surely the TBV countries are there for all to see. Who can reason them away? Go and ask any of them whether they want to turn back on that road; go and ask any of them whether they want to forfeit their independence, and hon. members will be insulted as they have never been insulted before. Surely these are realities. Do hon. members think that the independence of the Ciskei which will take place on 4 December this year, is simply something that has been grasped out of the air, a pipe-dream? Surely it is truly a reality. It is not a Chief Minister that is becoming independent; surely it is a nation that is becoming independent. After all, they went to the polls on this; almost 100% of them voted in favour of it. Do hon. members not see what is living and burning in the hearts of these people?

The second principle is the principle of people being nationally orientated. It is accepted that every person, whether he lives in South Africa or in the national States, belongs to a specific national group. Any political measures that are taken, must make it possible for him to realize his aspirations within his national context. This is a basic reality. If politicians—and I could mention names, of both White and Black politicians—are now trying to make political capital out of the situation for their own benefit—as we do have occurring—and are overlooking the true reality of people being nationally orientated, hon. members know who is going to win in the end. World history is full of this. When will hon. members on that side of the House learn to understand this basic reality of the history of nations throughout the centuries? Sometimes I throw up my hands in surprise at the fact that hon. members of the Opposition fail to appreciate it and cannot understand it.

The third principle is the principle of political sovereignty. This means that every nation must have the right to establish its own sovereign political structure in which every individual can participate in a democratic way in the composition of its representative institutions of government.

The fourth principle is the principle of interdependence of nations, the need for and the necessity of creating constitutional and institutional measures for the promotion of co-operation. This is going to lead to the creation of a confederation, about which hon. members are going to hear much more in the months to come. This is the fruit of many years of hard work, of building brick by brick upon the only true realities of the situation of South Africa, i.e. that there are these nations regarding which I mentioned figures to hon. members and none of them fails to appreciate it. I once said to Chief Buthelezi: “If you do not want to keep the citizens that are beyond the borders of the national States of kwaZulu, give them to me; I shall take them. I shall take them with the greatest of pleasure.” His reply was very clear: “No, those people are my people.” He says it on television too, and so does Prof. Ntsanwisi and other Black leaders. Over the past few months we have been involved in discussions on these matters with the Chiefs and with the chairmen of Community Councils, and the message that filters through each time, once it has been stripped of politicians who are trying to derive certain benefits from the situation for political purposes, is that their citizens are theirs, and they are proud of the fact and want to accept responsibility for their citizens. We on this side of the House will really not be so stupid as to overlook these basic truths now when we have been aware of them for 30 years and have already achieved a degree of success in that we have peace in South Africa at present whereas as far back as 30 years ago, everyone was shouting that revolution was going to break out in South Africa. These are the things that prevented it. The development of this policy lead to it. Let anyone deny this in this House today. Those hon. members act as if it does not exist. The development of this policy has lead to the establishment of 10 national States in South Africa. Each one has its own territory, its own Legislative Assembly and its own system of government according to the way they have developed over the past 30 years. I have said it before and hon. members may laugh about it, but it reads quite like a fairy tale. [Interjections.] Yes, I thought that the hon. member for Bryanston would laugh. That hon. member, who was a backbencher and is a frontbencher now, should, with all due respect, have remained a backbencher. If I were to tell hon. members how we began in 1952, when these things were merely a dream, when we took the first step with Bantu authorities, and how this lead to district authorities …

Do you believe all this?

I am not like that hon. member. I believe what I say and I am enthusiastic about it. This lead to district authorities, to regional authorities, and seven years later Dr. Verwoerd rose to his feet in this Parliament and said that we had now reached the phase of self-government. The hon. member for Houghton experienced all of this. After that came their own legislative assemblies, self-government with their own cabinets, the election of their own chiefs, and then the final phase, independence. There are already five of them and us now. When I began here in 1952 there was nothing. Now there are already five. I can assure hon. members today that if they think that the Ciskei will be the last one, they are far wrong. History will prove it.

What do they have against us granting the people independence?

Yes, what do they have against that? Why are they forever putting stumbling blocks in the way of these things, while they too share in the success of them? The development of this policy led to the establishment of ten national States in this way. Some of them have already become independent. I want to state a very important fact here today and to emphasize it strongly. If it is not important to hon. members on the opposite side, it is nevertheless important to every White child in this country, to every Black child in this country, and to the children of every Indian, every Coloured and every other population group in this country. This is that every nation that becomes independent, is a guarantee that a system of “one man, one vote” in a unitary State in South Africa is not possible. It is also a guarantee that majority rule by one group of people over another group in South Africa will not become a reality. That is why it is a guarantee for an evolutionary, peaceful development, and in my modest opinion—and I say this with a great deal of modesty—it is also a guarantee that revolution will not take place in this country. During my student years, I made a thorough study of and wrote a thesis on revolution in Britain and elsewhere. It is my honest conviction and belief that this is the sole guarantee that this country will yet be looked upon as a miracle by historians in these last years of the present century, because we have created the guarantees to ensure that revolution does not take place in this country and we are developing them. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs put it very well here this afternoon. What I am doing now, is to elucidate certain aspects thereof. I want to put it to hon. members that this is a continuing process, a process of positive policy development, as is clear from the confederation that is being held out in prospect now. Yesterday, the hon. the Prime Minister announced very important Government decisions here. On one occasion I said the following about this: “It is the most exciting idea that has come my way in my time.” [Interjections.] It is true. [Interjections.]

Order!

Piet is getting excited again.

Yes, it is true. I am becoming enthusiastic, and I am pleased that I can become enthusiastic about something that is fine, that is right and that is good. The hon. member ought to envy me because he cannot manage to do so himself. This is because his cause is so wrong. What I am referring to, is this economic regional development that cuts across the borders of national States, and across other borders too, and which is linked to the Small Business Corporation and to the advent of a development bank and co-operative projects in order to give further substance to those things that I have given a brief exposition of here. Furthermore, there is still the important possibility that when we can reach the point where a meaningful confederation can be established, because there are five of these States now, and excellent progress has already been made in that sphere—in which each nation will be able to come into its own right, as the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs has already correctly indicated. Therefore, every nation will be done full justice. Every nation will enjoy self-determination. The minority rights of each one is guaranteed. Then each one of us has a say in community affairs, on a basis where no one dominates the other. Therefore, meaningful decisions can be reached on community affairs in the interest of all those involved.

As a result of the economic interdependence of nations, we find ourselves in a situation in which approximately 10 million Blacks are resident outside these national States in White South Africa, and the presence of some of these is accepted as permanent today. Those people must be accommodated politically. There is not the least doubt about this. As a result of the principles of separate political sovereignties that I have already mentioned, and according to the principles of the right to self-determination of nations, as well as according to the principles of people being nationally orientated and nationally differentiated, it is essential for these Blacks to remain bound to their national States as far as possible, both politically and otherwise. It is our duty to do so. In spite of investigations which hon. members can look at and in spite of what can be read in newspapers and other publications, the harsh reality of the situation remains that there is such a bond. Since this is the case, it is our duty to develop that bond to the full. This is in fact what we are doing. I may add that we are doing so with a great deal of success.

I want to point out that I am a friend to the Black people. I have been a friend of the Blacks throughout my life. Throughout my life I have built up good relations with the Black people. Hon. members on the opposite side must not break them down now. They will not injure or harm me by doing so; I am already getting on in years. However, hon. members will be doing more damage than they realize. Let us further promote this fine disposition and these good relations.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

No, because unfortunately I have very little time at my disposal.

This bond is of cardinal importance and therefore we must develop it. However, then we must also bear in mind that this link must have a positive value and content. In the nature of things, a confederation can provide definite solutions in this regard, and we are working very hard at this at the moment. Over the past months I have held several discussions with leaders from inside and outside the national States and I can say with certainty today that I am protecting them. That is why I cannot reveal everything that I know, but I can say with equal certainty that good progress is being made and that good progress is going to be made in this regard in future too. Various possibilities have been submitted to leaders of the national states and leaders outside the national states and they are still being discussed. Together we are searching, White and Black, for the best ways of finding a peaceful, evolutionary solution to our problems. I am much more convinced today than I was 20 years ago, or even ten years ago that, in view of our practical experience over these long years, we are really in a position to find a peaceful solution to our multi-national problems in this country. We are working on this day and night, into the early hours of the morning, and we are succeeding in spite of the difficulties that the PFP is placing in our path.

There is one absolutely cardinal point in this process. I am asking hon. members in a nicely way to do one thing: Even though they do not agree with us, they must nevertheless try to put as few obstacles as possible in the path of this development, because it is absolutely, vitally essential and it is a valuable guarantee to all of us and this is: that equal status must be brought about between the various nations in this country in order to be able to establish a meaningful confederation of this kind. This equal status is of absolutely, cardinal necessity. As the confederation develops, I have no doubt that we will succeed in doing this.

It must be recognized that the Black man who is living outside the national States, not only has political needs that must be accommodated, but has powers of local authority that must be similarly accommodated. We are going to accommodate them, and I am about to make an announcement in this regard.

We in South Africa are going to carry things through in an evolutionary manner, because our solution to the problems of South Africa depends upon the realities of the situation and rests on firm foundations. What are those firm foundations? In the first place one finds those firm foundations in the fact that every population group has sound local government in South Africa today. We are now in co-operation with the Black people, going to help them to develop theirs further. Furthermore, we also have very sound regional control in South Africa and that is why it is much easier to handle the top level now than it was 30 years ago. We want to have these very strong foundations so that at the top level, that of confederation, we can give attention to the matter of inter-association in order to be able to deal there with joint matters in which everyone has an interest.

The question is whether this meets the aspirations of both the White and the Black man. The answer to this is undeniably in the affirmative. The course of the NP Government meets the aspirations of the Black man far better than anything that the communists or the Russians or the PFP can offer them. I am speaking from long experience when I say this. That is why the hon. members opposite are doomed to destructive politics as they have shown during the course of the debate. The hon. members are running away from their policy. They are a party that is running away because they have failed totally to keep pace with the realities of the situation over the past 30 years and they never learn either! Even now they are not taking the realities of the situation in South Africa into account. Sir, I gave the matter a lot of careful thought before I wrote down the following idea: There is an irresistible wave of Black and White in South Africa that, through self-determination, is grasping the golden key of shared responsibility and a shared say over matters of common interest, on the road to a good, progressive and peaceful future for all of us and all our children in the Republic of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister says “Ag!” as his time has now expired, but he had 20 minutes to tell the House what the Government intends doing about the real problem areas as far as the Black people of this country are concerned, and I refer to those Black people who live in the urban areas of South Africa, and he has failed to do so. Rather, the hon. the Minister spoke about what I would call the basic principles of pluralism, but I must tell him that he need not try to convince those of us who sit in these benches because we are enthusiasts when it comes to pluralistic constitutional thinking. He spoke at length about the changes that he expects to see as far as the homelands are concerned, and I am quite sure that every hon. member in the House waited expectantly during the past few weeks to hear what this Government’s intensions are as to constitutional developments. I think it was the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs who said that everyone was awaiting this debate. He said no one could claim that the status quo in South Africa should remain and that there was a programme of action to improve our lives together. He said further that the Prime Minister had said that Whites must change or die. Mr. Speaker, these are very thought-provoking statements and one would have hoped to have heard more about this in the debate. I would like to say to this hon. Minister and to the Prime Minister that after yesterday’s speeches I am afraid that very little has really been said which satisfies the people’s expectations.

The hon. the Minister then said that in a country in the process of transformation like South Africa is, one will find that there is a great or a high conflict potential. He went on to say that this is owing on the one hand to expectations and on the other hand to fear. This is where I believe this Government stands accused and that is why I often say the NP Government is a political schizophrenic—it has two faces. On the one hand it says, like the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development has said, that there is a great new future awaiting South Africa, and then on the other hand certain members of that party from time to time make statements that destroys the Government’s credibility. For instance, during the last election there were the usual statements from the Government about the great expectations. The Government raises the expectations, but then members of the party issue election pamphlets such as they did in Natal stating how much this Government has discriminated in favour of Whites in respect of education, and they do so in order to placate White “verkrampte” thinking and White extremist views. This is a problem which the Government has to face, and I had hoped that in this debate we could have expected more from the hon. the Prime Minister and the Ministers who have spoken so far.

We in these benches will certainly concede that it takes time to pave the way for constitutional change. We believe in evolutionary change and it does take time; especially, as the hon. member for Pretoria Central said yesterday, in view of the fact that within the President’s Council itself, which we support, there are members who are not as well versed in the intricacies and the realities of constitutional and political matters as maybe hon. members in this House are. These things we accept, Sir, and we also accept the necessity of possibly having to wait another 12 or 18 months until the President’s Council’s recommendations are correctly and constitutionally dealt with by our political institutions.

But what we in these benches cannot accept is this Government’s vacillation in making clear and unequivocal statements and declaring defined programmes of action on the road towards meeting those expectations to which those hon. members have referred. I am referring, for example, to such important issues as the repealing of offensive, discriminatory legislation at present on our Statute Book. We would expect this Government to give clarity on such major issues as nationality and citizenship in the new Republic that we all know is to come about in the near future. It may take a few years, but it is certainly going to come about. There is the necessity for the general statements so often made by the NP about all groups needing to have equal rights, to be translated into details about these particular rights, especially as applied to people of colour. To vacillate over these issues, I believe, is dangerous for South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs talk about the reality of the powers of conflict which wish to destabilize our sub-continent, but I should like to assure those hon. gentlemen that they need not worry about the NRP’s acceptance of these realities and neither need they concern themselves about our commitment to fight and destroy these evil forces of revolution and dictatorship. To fight these forces fully and effectively, however—and we have tens of thousands of our men on the Border fighting these forces—surely what is required is a unifying force in South Africa, such as an unequivocal commitment to a new Republic for all, spurred on by dynamic and honest and unequivocal leadership. I believe that this is what the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole are not providing. I think this is evident in the confusion one finds in the ranks of the NP itself, and also in the sense of disillusionment that pervades the country at the present time because of the inactivity of the Government. I believe I can say that it appears, at the present time, that the hon. the Prime Minister and the NP as a whole are playing ducks and drakes with South Africans for their own party political reasons. I believe that they are over-emphasizing the fears within the NP rather than emphasizing the great future that lies ahead for South Africa, if only we can overcome some of the fears that we do have. When one considers the political urgency in this day and age, I must say that I believe that what is required is far greater statesmanship from the leaders of the NP.

The hon. the Prime Minister himself said yesterday that for any constitutional philosophy to succeed in South Africa, the rights of minority groups could not be ignored. We in these benches, as pluralists, agree entirely with the hon. the Prime Minister in this regard. Surely, however, he must concede that his equivocation on certain basic principles essential to such a new and acceptable constitutional dispensation, is actually frustrating the general acceptance of the concept of such a constitution, thereby playing right into the hands of our enemies who seek to destroy us. For instance, this assists those forces trying to discredit the President’s Council, who are hoping—as I know the members of the PFP are—that the President’s Council will fail in its task.

We are not hoping, we know it.

There it is! It is quite clear. This equivocation on the part of the Government plays right into the official Opposition’s hands. [Interjections.]

My leader’s amendment calls for an alliance of White moderates to negotiate, with other groups, a new dispensation which will firstly eliminate domination or discrimination by or against any community. This is a principle I am sure we will all agree with and I believe that such a principle entrenched in the constitution is essential for the achievement of good relationships between Black and White which, as the hon. member for Pretoria Central stressed yesterday, are necessary for—and I am quoting him—

He went on to say that this is the hon. the Prime Minister’s ideal for South Africa.

I submit that these good relationships can only exist when racism as exhibited and practised by some Whites, and indeed also by some Blacks, is eliminated from the broad stream of our society; and not only eliminated but also condemned by our accepted leaders and opinion makers. Advocates of White power—and there are many of them today; in Natal there is a sign next to one of our major highways reading “HNP—White Power”—and advocates of White supremacy, that is to say, extreme White nationalism, have no place whatsoever in South African politics, just as discriminating legislation based on skin colour has no place in it. I believe the NP must search its own soul and be seen to be those in the forefront condemning such practices and calling for the repeal of such legislation. This is the great disappointment of this session so far in this debate. We have heard nothing about the repealing of this discriminatory legislation.

Neither do I believe that there is a place in South African politics for those who advocate and promote the concept of Black Power, the concept of “Amandla” and a Black nationalist take-over of South Africa. I believe that in this connection the PFP has much to answer for, because it is among their supporters that one finds those who thrust their clenched fists in the air to the cry of “Amandla” and give the Black Power salute. During the last election we saw supporters of the PFP with their clenched fists acclaiming “Amandla” and Black Power. We certainly also saw it during the Republic Festival celebrations in Natal. For good relationships to be established between Black and White in South Africa, these extremists, radical groups and actions must surely be condemned by all South Africans. They should certainly be condemned by every member in the House. We should be seen to be leading this condemnation and therefore I believe every hon. member must support the first leg of my leader’s amendment.

The second leg of his amendment calls for the ensuring of the right of any group to preserve its own character and to control its own intimate affairs. As has been said repeatedly by members of this party, the NRP follows the political philosophy of pluralism and as such we believe—as I believe the hon. the Minister for Co-operation and Development also believes—that peace and harmony between South Africa’s diverse groups can only he achieved through the acceptance and recognition of each group’s national and nationalistic feeling and by the constitutional entrenchment of a political power base for each group to control its own intimate affairs. It is only through the constitutional entrenchment of group rights that groups can achieve that self-respect which is so essential in order for mutual respect to exist among groups. We in the NRP willingly—and I stress this—enthusiastically—probably more so than the hon. the Minister—and unequivocally wish to see each of our national groups achieve its own group rights, self-determination and self-respect. We know that in order to achieve this, the White group must relinquish certain powers, as well as—and I stress this—repeal certain discriminatory legislation which is frustrating the building up of good group relations in South Africa. I believe that if this were done, it would open up equal opportunities and lead to better race relations among all the people of South Africa, which is the ideal the hon. the Prime Minister keeps talking about.

In this regard I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Pretoria Central—and I am sorry that he is not here today—talk about these things. He also talked about extending the hand of friendly nationalism. I am pleased to hear this because I believe that such a concept can be a powerful force for good in a multi-national State such as ours. On the other hand, selfish and dictatorial sectional nationalism, as reflected by much of the discriminatory apartheid legislation on our Statute Book, legislation which was drawn up and put on to our Statute Book by the hon. members opposite, is, I believe, just the opposite of what the hon. member was talking about. That type of nationalism is an evil force. It spawns inter-group bitterness and conflict and I believe it makes “nationalism” a dirty word. I regret to say that it has made “Afrikaner nationalism” a dirty expression. This is the albatross which the NP has hanging around its neck at the present time, and which is doing so much harm to the name of South Africa. That is why we call upon the Government to get rid of these discriminatory laws.

I realize that talk of nationalism and multi-nationalism is anathema to the official Opposition. I believe this is because they do not recognize the entrenchment of group or ethnic rights. In fact, they do not even recognize ethnicity. While I am sure that certain moderates in the NP will support my hon. leader’s amendment in this regard, I know that the PFP will reject it outright.

Hear, hear!

I have to admit that I smiled when, on Friday, the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition read out the third leg of his motion of censure. It reads—

As my hon. leader said, it was a case of the pot calling the kettle black. No matter how hard we who fought PFP candidates in the last election tried to get that party to reveal to the electorate, the details of their constitutional policy, and the consequences thereof, they persisted in evading the issues.

That is not true. [Interjections.]

It is true. I should like to ask the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition to give the House during this debate the reasons why this was so. Let him be honest with this Parliament and the South African electorate. I invite him or one of his senior front-bench colleagues to spell out clearly and unequivocally the PFP’s constitutional policy.

But it is in black and white.

I want to say to the hon. member that I have it in black and white and that at every election meeting I read out the PFP constitutional policy. I quoted it in the Press and invited hon. members of the official Opposition to refute it, but they evaded the issue.

Why should we refute our own policy? That is ridiculous.

Sir, they would not accept that their policy must inevitably lead to Black majority rule. [Interjections.] Well, I invite hon. members to use this debate to spell out clearly and unequivocally what the PFP’s constitutional policy will mean for the future of South Africa. For instance, is it not true that the PFP proposes a federation of geographical areas called “states” in South Africa? It does so on page 26 of its publication. Is it not true that the PFP proposes a general adult franchise of all citizens regardless of race and that they will all be registered on a common voters’ roll?

That is absolutely correct.

Is it not true that the PFP proposes that this multiracial electorate will elect both state and federal legislative assemblies and that nowhere in their proposals is it suggested that individual national groups have the power to control their own intimate affairs? Is this not true?

As quiet as mice!

That is quite true. Why shouldn’t we be “as quiet as mice”? It is in our book. [Interjections.]

Then, is it not true that these proposals reject the concept of, let us say, Ciskeian nationalism or Zulu nationalism, but rather open the way for a political party such as the ANC eventually to take power in South Africa? Is this not true?

That is your interpretation.

There we have it: That is our interpretation.

Well, it is your interpretation. It is a stupid interpretation as well.

Sir, this is what always happens. When one tries to pin down the PFP to the realistic consequences of its policy, it replies “that is your interpretation”.

But it is a stupid interpretation. We are not going to accept stupid interpretations.

Mr. Speaker, those of us who are wise in the ways of politicians and political parties realize that PFP constitutional proposals are an open highway to the transfer of political power from the White National Party to the Black African National Congress in South Africa which, incidentally, plans the destruction of Black national States such as KwaZulu, Transkei, Ciskei and others. They would like to replace the Government in this country with a one-party Marxist régime. I believe that the PFP must answer to and debate these charges in this House during this debate. They have the time to do so.

We are not prepared to debate every nonsensical premise that you put forward.

If the PFP persists in refusing to give details of the realities and consequences of its policies then I believe that we all know the reasons why. We in the NRP recognize the reality of South Africa. We recognize the fact that our people come from vastly contrasting national and ethnic groups. We advocate a constitution that gives to each group a political power base and that is its own legislative assembly to legislate on those matters that are considered intimate to the group itself. We believe that this is essential for the maintenance of the self-respect of each group so as to ensure its freedom from political domination by another group. [Interjections.] For years in this country we have been decrying the fact that because of our present constitutional system a White nationalist party has dominated the rest of South Africa. Under PFP policy, exactly the opposite will happen.

Mr. Speaker, we accept the concept of group nationalism. We recognize the fact that, for example, the Ciskei nation wishes to entrench its own nationhood through self-government. We recognize the fact that for mutual respect to exist among the nations in South Africa, all groups must be proud of what they are and they must also be proud of their own history and culture. That is why, Sir, it pleases us when we see Chief Gatsha Buthelezi on television as we did on Saturday night when he was opening the reconstruction site of Chief Cetshwayo’s kraal in Zululand. It pleased us to hear him talk about his nation’s pride and the fact that the Zulu people must be proud of what they are and also be proud of their past. While we in the NRP are ever vigilant in regard to the excesses of extreme nationalism—we are ever vigilant of these, Sir, and that is why we sit in this party—we continue to watch with interest the Inkatha movement and sincerely hope that it will prove to be a truly cultural liberation movement and a force for the upliftment of the Zulu nation.

Mr. Speaker, we in South Africa cannot escape the reality of group nationalism. After all, we must concede that it has always been part of our own White history as is evident from the efforts and achievements of Afrikaner nationalism many of which, as I am the first to admit, are very admirable indeed. Of course, there are also many others which I do not believe are admirable at all. That is why we condemn them from time to time. However, South Africa is now moving away from the selfish sectional nationalism that we have experienced in the past and we are moving into an era of multi-nationalism. I believe that this demands of all of us a broader concept of our future than many of us may have had in the past. I believe that the time for dogmatism is past. I think it was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who said yesterday that today it was a case of the ideologist versus the pragmatist. I agree with the hon. leader in that regard. However, by definition this must surely apply as much to the official Opposition as it does to the Government. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went further. He said that the challenges of today are a case of a division of power versus power sharing. I should like to submit for the consideration of his party that in our plural society it is quite possible that peace and harmony will be brought about by a constitution which achieves both—a division of power as far as the affairs intimate to a group are concerned and a sharing of power as far as the affairs of common concern are concerned.

This brings me to the third leg of my hon. leader’s amendment, namely, that an alliance of White moderates in South Africa negotiate a political dispensation with other groups which will decide together on common interests in a confederation of South Africa. In this regard I should like to put a question to hon. members opposite. Why is it that the NP always gets hung up on words as, in fact, does the PFP as well—words such as “federation”, “confederation”, “constellation”, and “commonwealth”? They get hung up on these words instead of discussing the nitty-gritty of the constitutional proposals and philosophies of our respective parties. For example, the NRP is very clear on what we mean by confederation.

What do you mean?

We mean a coming together of self-governing states with a large measure of decentralization of political decision-making, to the extent that the confederal legislative body only has powers to legislate on matters of common concern and by common agreement.

Did you say to legislate? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister is saying that it is a federation. [Interjections.] Such a confederal assembly should, I believe, not be looked upon as a super powerful political body. Its decision-making process should lean heavily towards the consensus model. While the confederation is a multinational state it must have a common citizenship. It should allow freedom of movement of its citizens throughout the confederation, always respecting, of course, the rights of groups and local option in matters which are considered to be intimate to the group.

During the debate yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister asked my leader to give an example of this and he mentioned the country of Switzerland. Immediately we heard shouts from all around the House that it was not a confederation but a federation. In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to read from Time magazine where there was a feature article on Switzerland. It appeared in the issue of 30 March. It states—

Now I put it to hon. members that in such a highly developed, highly civilized and highly economically developed country such as Switzerland, which consists solely of White people, it has been deemed necessary that their constitution should embody the very principles that our party is proposing at the present time. I cannot understand the PFP not accepting the Swiss model. They do not accept the pluralistic principles embodied in the Swiss constitution. One must ask the reasons why.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he is aware of the fact that in 1848 the Swiss accepted a federal constitution for what they call a confederation?

The hon. the Minister can play with words … [Interjections.] … and he can play with the name of a constitutional model. All I ask him to do is to consider the flesh around the principles which we embody in our constitution. Let us forget about arguing whether it is confederal or federal and let us accept the basic principles which are embodied in the proposals put forward by the NRP.

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti was not without a certain amount of merit, particularly when he referred to the reality of South Africa as a plural situation and acknowledged the fact that reform is an evolutionary process. He tried very hard, not without a certain amount of enthusiasm, to propagate the policies of his party, although I must admit at times he came very close to the policies of the NP. I gain the impression that he is a person who is looking for someone to convince him that he must join the NP.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No. I have very little time.

*Mr. Speaker, I should like to address the official Opposition, the PFP, and I wish to refer to the criticism which is so often levelled at the NP and its policy by that party, i.e. that the policy of this party is overtaxing the South African economy, that is imposing too great a burden on our economy and is therefore responsible for inflation. In fact, the hon. member for Bryanston said by way of interjection earlier this afternoon that it was the policy of this party which was impeding the economic progress of the country.

Before dealing with this aspect, however, I should like to make a few remarks about the economic premises of the PFP. Reference has been made in this debate to credibility. In his motion, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition actually questioned the credibility of the hon. the Prime Minister, and therefore of the Government as a whole. However, it is not the credibility of this party which is at issue. The credibility of the PFP is even more open to question. [Interjections.] Above all, the credibility of the PFP comes into question when economic matters are being debated. The PFP is actually a party with a schizoid personality. It is a party which is leftist-liberal in its political foundations, but rightist-capitalistic in its economic philosophy. So there is a conflict between its political creed and its economic philosophy. The creed of that party, which was spelt out again very clearly here yesterday by the hon. Leader, is full, equal citizenship for all in one undivided federal South Africa. In his exposition of his policy yesterday, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked for the unqualified removal of all forms of statutory discrimination. That, Mr. Speaker, means full integration, politically as well. It means one man, one vote in a unitary system, and it indisputably means that minority groups, such as the Whites, will also be a political minority group in every federal State as well as in the central federal Government.

In short, in terms of simple logic and arithmetic, this means Black majority rule. Even if the members of that party were to protest against this and to deny the inevitable outcome of their policy, their protest in this connection often reminds me of the fateful remark, “Never in my lifetime.” It is the more relevant because the party of the leader who used these words also followed a progressive policy. [Interjections.] The honest and logical consequences of the PFP’s leftist-liberal political standpoint should be a corresponding socialist economic order. Of course, hon. members on the other side will reject such a statement because that party has grown from a liberalism which advocates equal political rights for all in our situation in South Africa, but in its heart of hearts believes that it will be possible for economic inequalities to be maintained unchanged. As the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs showed earlier this afternoon, the PFP still subscribes to the liberal philosophy of the 19th century in terms of which politics and economics were regarded as two separate spheres which seldom if ever overlapped. Politics could be democratized without having to democratize the economy, i.e. without necessarily having to create a welfare State. The political justice extolled by the PFP, the political justice which they eagerly pursue through their policy—and which according to them can only be realized in an egalitarian society in which statutory discrimination is removed without qualification—must surely lead to a politicized social and economic dispensation, i.e. to a welfare State with equal benefits for the population as a whole. If the great socio-economic disadvantages and inequalities of the Third World are to be wiped out in our midst, if, as the PFP contends, a just socio-economic order is to be found in an integrated society, a so-called open society, surely it is obvious that the capitalist system with its great inequalities of capital, of ownership and economic power groupings, must be rejected. Surely it is simply impossible to visualize unitary citizenship under a Black Third World majority government in South Africa in the future without an increasing socializing of the economy.

There are hon. members on the other side who will silently concede this to me in their hearts. That is why the big money connections of that party and its capitalist orientations are an embarrassment to some members in that party. It is a pity that the hon. member for Pinelands is not here at the moment, because we might have discussed this further.

At least he is representing somebody! [Interjections.]

The PFP will not succeed in gaining credibility for its liberal politics among the Black masses before it rids itself of its capitalist friends and its big money image.

You represent no one.

That is the reason for the schizophrenia as well as the lack of credibility of that party. [Interjections.] If Black majority rule were to be established in South Africa in terms of the PFP policy, the inevitable insistence of majority interests would cause the demands on the State finances to increase to such an extent that it would simply not be possible to resist an expanding socialist order. There are enough examples of this in Africa, and there are examples, too, to illustrate the unfortunate consequences.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: While the hon. unrepresentative Minister is speaking, is a member allowed to say that I am “onbeskof”?

But you have demonstrated that.

I did not say that.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: Is an hon. member allowed to refer to an hon. Minister as an “unrepresentative” Minister? Is it permissible to refer to an hon. Minister in this way instead of calling him “the hon.” the Minister?

Order! The hon. member for Sandton must withdraw that reference.

The hon. the Minister does not represent anybody in this House. He represents no constituency and he is an hon. Minister without an electoral division.

Order! The hon. member for Sandton referred to the hon. the Minister in a contemptuous way and I ask him to withdraw it.

Sir, I withdraw whatever you wish me to withdraw.

When one steps on them, they squeal. It is quite clear that the hon. member for Sandton is getting hurt.

I should like to make a second remark, and this concerns the false impression created by the PFP through its criticism of Government policy. The PFP creates the impression that their policy would free the South African economy of all its restrictions. If they got the opportunity to come into power, they would proclaim a new, just dispensation, in the socio-economic sphere as well, with a single stroke of the pen. All that is standing in the way of such a just dispensation are the ideological chains with which the NP’s policy is supposed to be impeding growth and development in South Africa. The fiction which the PFP is trying to establish is that if their policy were implemented, the South African economy would enter an era of marvellous prosperity. Inflation would disappear, price increases would be a thing of the past—an economic Utopia would descend upon us, as it were. [Interjections.] The hon. members are protesting, but the hon. member for Bryanston does admit that this is the nature of the criticism they are levelling at this side of the House.

The spuriousness of this criticism lies in the fact that the NP policy is attacked and criticized because it allegedly obstructs and impedes the economy, but nothing is said about the implications of the PFP policy for the economy and the State finances. Nothing is ever said about the demands which their policy will make on the economy. Let us examine more closely the implications for the State finances of some of the policies advocated by the PFP. Let us take their education policy. The PFP advocates the unqualified opening of all schools. This has repeatedly been spelt out quite clearly by spokesmen of that party.

Equality must be brought about in the quality of education. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville should just relax for a moment. I say the policy of the PFP is the unqualified opening of all schools. This means that if the PFP came into power, the doors of all schools would simply be opened to all. Equality in education would be proclaimed overnight, and where there were backlogs, these would have to be eliminated. Where there were not enough facilities such as schools, these would have to be built. [Interjections.] There is a very great difference between the fiction which the PFP tries to present with regard to its education policy and the elimination of differences which I shall discuss at a later stage and which is supported by this Government. The PFP pretends that when they come into power, these differences will simply be wiped out; the doors of the schools will be opened and the inequalities which exist will immediately be wiped out, but they are silent about the implications of this for the Exchequer. On that point the PFP is silent. I repeat, no one is opposed to the attempt to bring about greater qualitative equality in education, but the illusion which the PFP is presenting is that this can be achieved at overnight without regard to the implications for the State finances.

Do not use the word “overnight”.

Mr. Speaker, here is a new sound. Their policy of justice will now require time. Is the hon. member prepared to give us an indication of how long it will take to implement their justice in the field of education?

Are you prepared to give an indication of the time it will take your party to do this?

The hon. member for Bryanston can speak for himself. The hon. member is trying to evade the implications of the policy with which they are constantly creating the expectation that when they come into power, the differences will simply be wiped out, but without spelling out the economic implications of this. A simple calculation indicates that equal expenditure on education would require an immediate expenditure of between R5 000 million and R6 000 million by the State, because the schools will immediately be opened when that party comes into power. How does the hon. member for Yeoville intend to finance this if he is going to become the chief spokesman on finance? Is he going to increase taxation? [Interjections.] There is a great difference between the policy which the PFP advocates and which the hon. member for Yeoville is now trying to run away from and the one which the Government advocates.

The fiction spread by the PFP is that the just dispensation which they advocate can simply be proclaimed. It can be introduced by edict without spelling out its major financial implications. The actual situation is that we have to satisfy First and Third World demands simultaneously and that the enormous differences which exist cannot simply be proclaimed away. The far-reaching and phenomenal demands which the implementation of PFP policy would make on the limited means of the South African economy are conveniently ignored, but they criticise our policy and they criticise its implications for the State finances.

I have referred to education, but there are many more spheres we could deal with. For example, the Opposition rejects a permit system to control influx to the cities. Under their policy, Black work-seekers would flock to the metropolitan areas, where subsidized housing and other social services would have to be provided to them on a large scale. How would these be financed? [Interjections.]

The PFP makes the accusation against the Government that its policy is a burden on the economy, but fails to mention the enormous demands which the implementation of PFP policy would make on the economy and the taxpayer.

The Government has committed itself to a more equitable dispensation for everyone in South Africa, but this can only be achieved if the deep, basic differences which exist in our situation are recognized and respected, and if we go about it on the basis of a programme and at a tempo, as part of a process—this is a word which the hon. the Prime Minister also used today and which the Opposition members refer to so contemptuously—which will not overtax the economic means of South Africa and lead to hyper-inflation. I should like to challenge hon. members on that side of the House—I am referring specifically to members of the official Opposition—to inform this House about the implications of the implementation of their policy for the taxpayer. How are they going to implement the political equality they propagate in the social and economic spheres and how are they going to finance it from the Exchequer?

Give us a chance, and we will show you.

They have never made the necessary sums. Have they ever calculated what equal pensions and salaries would to cost them if their dispensation were proclaimed overnight? [Interjections.] The irony is that their policy would not lead to inflation of 15%, but to inflation of 150%. [Interjections.] Then we would not have a growth rate of 5% either, because the implementation of their policy would completely disrupt the small, developed sector of our economy. It is a complete oversimplification to argue that the inflation rate we have to contend with is the result of the Government’s policy. The current inflation rate which we are struggling with and which is so stubbornly refusing to go down is a much more complicated problem. Various explanations are being offered for the problem and for the cause of the inflation. However, I want to endorse the standpoint of a former French Prime Minister, Mr. Raymond Barre, who alleged—

I therefore support the standpoint that in the course of time, certain structural changes have come about in our society which have made the national economy more and more susceptible to inflation. In the course of years, the economy has lost its suppleness and adaptibility, with the result that price shocks, price increases, are no longer being absorbed by the economy, as in the past, but are being passed on by the economy.

In my opinion, the main cause lies in the fact that for several reasons, the market forces of supply and demand have become more and more distorted and disrupted. In the process, a “cost plus” psychosis has developed. In other words, the idea has taken root that if costs go up, whether it be the consumer’s cost of living or the entrepreneur’s operating expenditure, everyone is perfectly entitled to insist on being compensated for the cost increase, irrespective of what the supply of or the demand for that particular product or service may be. It is interesting to note that in its latest report, the Stellenbosch Bureau for Economic Research also mentions this “cost plus” syndrome. I quote from page 33—

That is what it says in this quotation.

Read the following part as well.

The following part has nothing to do with the “cost plus” argument.

Sir, this process has been further encouraged in our situation by salary demands which are not always related to increased productivity. We have the situation today that the vast majority of prices and wages are being determined by discretion rather than by supply and demand. The market forces are being repressed and distorted by a whole series of factors.

I want to repeat that it is the intention of the Government to allow the discipline of the market to function as far as possible without any restrictive administrative interference. This approach is confirmed by several steps already taken by my department. However, there is a large measure of economic concentration in many sectors of the South African economy. This, together with the “cost plus” psychosis to which I have already referred, often causes higher prices to be passed on to the consumer than would have been the case in strictly competitive circumstances.

The establishment of the Competition Board provides an important instrument for promoting competition, and the council is presently investigating several branches of industry to see whether there are certain practices which are hindering competition which can be got rid of. Import control measures, too, were recently relaxed in order to increase the supply of goods on the local market, thereby promoting competition.

However, in its attempt to combat inflation and price increases, the Government must keep in mind other priorities and other important economic objectives as well. The need for maintaining strong growth in order to provide sufficient employment for the rapidly increasing number of work-seekers is a priority and a matter which speaks for itself. In fact, it is a policy of the Government to implement any anti-inflationary measure in such a way as not to endanger the achievement of the objectives of growth and employment.

To ensure the sustained growth and development required in South Africa, the industrial potential of South Africa will have to be developed even further. The South African mining potential has already been extensively developed and our dependence on gold is definitely too one-sided. To achieve the maximum growth and employment in an economy in which First and Third World sectors exist side by side is no easy task. Just as Western political systems cannot be applied to our situation without qualification, we shall also have to find an economic system and an economic foundation which is functionally effective in our situation and in our circumstances.

In this connection, the guidelines which the hon. the Prime Minister announced yesterday are of the utmost importance. Within the framework of a regional development plan, an industrial strategy for South Africa can be developed further. This is a matter to which my department is giving serious attention at the moment. The guidelines announced by the hon. the Prime Minister can provide the momentum for an era of new economic growth and development in South and Southern Africa. They offer a framework which will ensure the maximum involvement of all peoples and a sound and vigorous pattern of distribution for industrial activities in South and Southern Africa.

The PFP has an ideological obsession with theories and solutions which are applicable to a First World situation and which are not applicable to South Africa and will certainly not succeed in our circumstances. This situation can only be dealt with by a sense of realism which takes cognisance of the diversity and the realities of South Africa. It is a feature of the NP that it possesses that sense of realism.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. the Minister without a seat ate a forbidden apple in the Gardens. That is why he is now wandering in the political desert. In the course of the debate we have seen how formerly enlightened members of the Cabinet have one after the other been tending to move in a “ver-krampte” direction. When this happened, I said to myself: Yes, but there is one man who will stand by his “verligte” convictions and that is the hon. the Minister without a seat. Now, however, this hon. member has stood up and, just like the others, come up with a “verkrampte” speech. Then I understood: This hon. Minister has a problem. He must soon fight an election against the brother of the hon. the Minister of State Administration and of Statistics, Minister Treumicht. Because the latter hon. Minister has twice missed the mark, he does not again wish to …

Who is your candidate?

We shall have a candidate there. Because the hon. the Minister has already missed the mark twice, he does not wish to be faced with that problem again, and consequently he has decided to move in a “verkrampte” direction at this early stage. I cannot reply to his whole speech.

It is a pity one does not have time to do so. [Interjections.] I simply do not have the time. I should very much have liked to do so. However, the hon. the Minister made a statement here to which I want to refer. In this connection I should like to have the attention of the hon. the Minister of National Education. The hon. the Minister of National Education said that he foresaw equal education for all groups in South Africa with exactly the same standards, but in separate schools. The hon. the Minister without a seat states that the PFP wants to provide equal education to all the groups in South Africa in common schools. Then he said that the Minister of National Education could manage to provide equal education in separate schools, but that we could not do it in common schools.

You make out that you can do it immediately …

Give us the opportunity; give us the chance, and we shall show you how it can be done.

But the voters do not want to give you a chance.

Just give the voters time. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister went on to say that the PFP could not afford to remove apartheid in South Africa and create a situation of no discrimination towards any citizen of the country. I want to say that the cost of apartheid is far higher than the cost involved in abolishing apartheid. An independent economist, Mr. Abrahamse, has calculated that it has already cost South Africa R13 000 million to implement apartheid in South Africa. If we had had that money today, we could abolish apartheid and give every citizen of South Africa equal opportunities—equal education opportunities, equal training opportunities, equal job opportunities and equal services.

We shall come back to that again later, but tremendous opposition has been expressed today by various hon. Ministers to everything that is “verlig” and they have taken the side of everything that is “verkramp”. I just wish to quote the hon. Minister without a seat once more.

Order!

But, Sir, how then am I to refer to him?

Order! The hon. member must address the Minister as “the hon. the Minister”.

The hon. the Minister …

Without Gardens!

Today and yesterday an effort has been made to climb down from the standpoints of 1979. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs said here today that we could not speak in terms of equal citizenship in South Africa. He introduced the term “group citizenship”. It is very clear that the citizenship in the case of the colour groups will be inferior as far as the individual is concerned, compared with the citizenship of the White individual. How is one to reconcile that with what this other hon. Minister said a short time ago, namely that “Whites, Coloureds and Indians must take one another’s hands and together build one constitutional system with one leader, one anthem, one flag and one loyalty?” My question is: How does one manage that? How on earth does one manage that if one does not do so on the basis and foundation of equal citizenship for all our people? How does one say to the White man with a superior citizenship that he must take the hand of a Coloured with an inferior citizenship? How can he say to that Coloured that they must now build a nation and a country together? Surely that cannot be done. Hon. members opposite know that that cannot be done. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Industries will be singing a different tune after Piketberg.

He will still be here after Piketberg. Do not worry about that.

The image that was built up with so much care and trouble, the image of the hon. the Prime Minister as a pragmatist, a realist and a “verligte”, was destroyed in this House yesterday by the hon. the Prime Minister himself. [Interjections.] He himself destroyed it. The hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development got the fright of their lives. They were scared to death …

Of you.

… of the progress made by the HNP in the recent general election. [Interjections.] So they decided: “If you cannot beat them, join them.” [Interjections.]

That is what you did with the old Progressive Party. [Interjections.]

They decided that this game of “verligtheid” was something that they definitely did not want to carry on with. While the hon. the Prime Minister was speaking, I was watching hon. members opposite; I looked at every face. The first man whose face I watched was of course the hon. Transvaal leader of the NP. He could not believe his ears. He sat there smiling from ear to ear. His cup of happiness was overflowing. He could not believe that the hon. the Prime Minister had begun to see things differently and declared himself prepared to accept the standpoints of the hon. the Minister of State Administration here. The poor Minister of Foreign Affairs … Oh, Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.] … I watched him, too.

Order! The hon. member must refer to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs as an hon. Minister.

The poor hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs … [Interjections.] I watched that poor hon. Minister’s face, too. He sat there in his bench, dejected and defeated. The hon. member for Randburg, too, and certain other hon. members opposite sat there in their benches dejected and defeated and hung their heads in dissatisfaction. I am sure they were thinking about the good old days of Upington and the Carlton Hotel. [Interjections.]

Earlier today the hon. member for Sea Point referred to what the hon. the Prime Minister said in the Carlton Hotel. Let me quote the words of the hon. the Prime Minister once again—

It was a very good speech.

What fine and wonderful words! Those were the winged words of the hon. the Prime Minister when he spoke before all those businessmen in the Carlton Hotel. It is really so nice to be “verlig”. It is really so nice to speak like a PFP man there. [Interjections.] Little did the hon. the Prime Minister know then that his words would have such an effect on the HNP in the following general election that they would give that party 200 000 votes. The result of all those fine words was precisely nothing. Apartheid made a comeback in this House yesterday, through the agency of the hon. the Prime Minister. Apartheid was restored to an honourable place by the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. Let us just consider all the things that the hon. the Prime Minister said in this House yesterday. He said that there would never be a common voters’ roll for Whites, Indians and Coloureds in South Africa.

But when did he ever say otherwise?

He said that there would not be a common Parliament for Whites, Coloureds and Asians.

But when did he say otherwise?

No, I am merely saying that he stressed that. He said it with emphasis. He stated categorically that a national convention would never take place under an NP Government. [Interjections.] He put forward clear standpoints. He said it with emphasis, and in a defiant tone of voice. What is the poor President’s Council to do under these circumstances. The hon. the Prime Minister has surely imposed certain restrictions on them. They can make proposals, but only proposals falling within those very narrow limits. By the end of this year they must submit a report, they must report on proposals which will please the hon. the Prime Minister, on things which he is in fact prescribing to them now, things that fall within the bounds of what he has clearly spelled out here, things which carry the approval of the NP’s congresses, things which will gain a majority vote in an exclusive White referendum. My question now is whether anyone on the Government side can tell us whether the Coloureds will also be able to vote in that referendum. Will the Asians also have an opportunity to vote in that referendum? Will it be exclusively a White referendum? What about the poor people who were prepared to go and sit in the President’s Council? They were told: “You have a mandate to put forward proposals for a new constitution for South Africa.” Now, however, they are being prescribed to. They now no longer have the opportunity to come forward with proposals for a new constitution for South Africa which does not fall within the limits now set for them by the hon. the Prime Minister. I wonder if those people, if they have self-respect, still deem it worthwhile to continue to serve on that council. I wonder whether they will not decide that it is no longer worth the trouble for them to serve on that council because it is only going to reduce their credibility further.

The hon. the Prime Minister also confirmed another standpoint, a standpoint previously endorsed in this House by former Minister Connie Mulder. He said that the day would come when there were no South Africans who were Black, that no Black man would be found in South Africa as a South African when apartheid had been given full effect to. Many hon. Ministers differed with him in speeches they made here. Yesterday, however, the hon. the Prime Minister again clearly stressed that when a homeland becomes independent, every citizen of that homeland, every person who can in any way be regarded as a citizen of that homeland, must forfeit his South African citizenship, summarily and without having given his permission for such a step; in other words, the time will come when there will be no Black South African citizens. In other words, the hon. the Prime Minister has fully accepted the standpoint of former Minister Connie Mulder and the hon. the Minister of State Administration and the right wing of the NP. He has now joined those people. The hon. the Prime Minister is right, of course; there is no difference in principle left in the National Party. There used to be, but the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the hon. the Prime Minister have decided to throw in the towel. The white flag is waving and they are now marching in the “verkrampte” brigade of the hon. the Minister of Statistics, as drum majorettes, as drummers in his brigade.

I now come to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. It is he who has changed the most. His has been the most far-reaching change of approach. I think that this hon. Minister is the man who was given the biggest fright by the progress made by the HNP. In 1979, while in America—I am not going to quote his Palm Springs speech again; I am going to quote another speech he made there at that time—he spelt out four principles as the principles of the NP. And do you know, Sir, he spelt out the PFP policy there better than I could have done it, and also a great deal better than the hon. member for Innesdal can do it, although he tried very hard recently. Those four principles are the following: “Equality for all people before the law and equal chances and opportunities.” Why, then, is he climbing down now? “Full citizenship rights for all people.” “Full participation of all people in the decision-making process.”

Who said that?

I did, and I stand by that.

“Full participation of all …” Does that include Black people, Coloureds and Indians? … “in the decision-making process.” Surely that is this Parliament.

Participation in the decision-making process in their own Parliaments.

Order!

There you have it, Sir.

Order! The hon. member must attend when the Chair calls for order.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot permit a dialogue across the floor in this House.

The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development said in America that the third principle is “full participation of all people in the decision-making process”. However, he did not tell them there that this had to take place on the basis of NP policy.

Of course I did.

Aikôna! I am quoting it to you now, after all. Fourthly, he said: “Full human rights for all people regardless of race or colour.” Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the PFP stands for. Those are precisely the principles and policy of the PFP. We could not spell them out more clearly than that hon. Minister has done. If he is really convinced that that is the right thing for South Africa, then we can make progress and we must come together. Either that hon. Minister must come here or I must go over there, if that is what he means. Now, however, he has changed his standpoint entirely. He now no longer believes in these principles; he has changed them. He now maintains that he is very concerned about the supplanting of Whites by Blacks, and that we should go back to apartheid. There now has to be a bridge for every group: A bridge for the Coloureds, a bridge for the Bushmen and a kosher bridge for the Jewish community, in other words, a policy of “one man, one bridge”—a whole constellation of bridges. I do not want him to come and sit here now, because he has changed his views.

This hon. Minister has undergone a personality change which is absolutely inexplicable. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that when the people at Crossroads were in trouble two years ago, this Minister did a very fine thing, for humanitarian reasons. On his own responsibility he took steps to rescue those people from the humiliation and misery that was facing them at that period due to the actions of the officials. This Minister went overseas and boasted of what he had done. He is not a man who boasts a great deal, but he does do so from time to time. He said there, inter alia: “It should be clear that this achievement demonstrates a victory for humanitarian concern over dogmatic ideology.” He added: “I am a great believer in upholding sound family life as this is an indispensable prerequisite for a stable and happy society.”

My whole life attests to that.

Over the past few weeks a similar drama has occurred in the same region. In the coldest and wettest weather, and in the most unpleasant circumstances, the officials of that Minister’s department, of that Government, removed and destroyed the little houses of those people, the shelter they had against the elements, and those people were driven into the veld. They were prosecuted. Therefore the humanitarian period in that Minister’s life was short-lived. He has forgotten it, exclusively as a result of the outcome of the recent election. If those events had had to be dealt with before the election, he should again have adopted the humanitarian standpoint in regard to those people. One of the ugliest incidents in the history of this country—let us call it by its name—is this ugly and gross crime against a defenceless segment of the population of South Africa. It is terrorism which has the sanction of law in South Africa. It is terrorism that is carried out against a defenceless segment of our population.

You are protecting illegality.

It is terrorism that has the sanction of law, terrorism carried out by the agents of the Government. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! Is the hon. member insinuating that the Government has carried out a deed of terrorism?

No, Sir. I say that what happened there was terrorism, and the Government can decide for itself whether it is implicated or not.

Order! No, the hon. member said that the agents of the Government committed a deed of terrorism …

I did not say that, Sir. I say that what happened there was terrorism.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Mr. Speaker.

You have no respect for the laws of Parliament.

Order!

I have respect for the laws of Parliament and I also have respect for law and justice, but I have very little respect for the laws of apartheid.

I want to point out that the hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday that behind every act of sabotage of improved relations between people in South Africa there is a White person. I say that behind that act, which is an act of sabotage of good human relations in South Africa, are agents of the Government, that utilize Government laws to drive away those people and subject them to treatment which is shocking and shameful.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Oh really, man, rather go and distribute chastity belts in your constituency.

Order! The hon. member for Parys wants to raise a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member entitled to say that agents of the Government commit sabotage? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member employed the same words a short time ago. Now he has merely substituted the word “sabotage” for the word “terrorism”. It is my opinion that that amounts to the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, I was quoting the words of the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister used those words. He said that whenever sabotage of better human relations in South Africa was committed, then certain Whites were behind it. I am now saying that those Whites to whom the hon. the Prime Minister referred were the people who drove those defenceless people at Crossroads into the veld.

Order! The hon. member said “the Government’s agents”.

That is correct.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this point? I do not think it is at all unparliamentary to say things about the agents of the Government. They are not in this House. It is unparliamentary to ascribe anything dishonourable to a member of this House, but not to agents of those hon. members. It is therefore quite incorrect to rule that those words should be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, may I point out that when the hon. member referred to agents of the Government committing sabotage, he meant the Government was committing sabotage.

Order! My ruling is that if it is said that “the agents act on behalf of the Government”, it is the Government that gets the blame. Therefore those words are not admissible. I therefore call upon the hon. member to withdraw that statement.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: While accepting your ruling, I wonder whether you would reflect on it and advise the House under which rule of the Standing Orders the particular ruling is given.

I regard the expression in question as unparliamentary and I therefore rule that it is out of order.

Sir, in terms of which rule?

According to the rules of the House unparliamentary language is not allowed. I find that that expression is unparliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: If in fact your ruling is as you have given it, and I must respect your ruling, then I must ask you to rule out of order paragraph (b) of the hon. the Prime Minister’s amendment, because there he uses the following words—

Therefore, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister’s amendment is out of order, and I ask you to rule it out of order because fish cannot be made of the one and fowl of the other. If the hon. member is out of order, and if you do not want to reconsider that ruling, Sir, then I ask you to rule the hon. the Prime Minister’s amendment also out of order, because that is precisely what he is saying, almost in identical words. He does not use the word “sabotage”, but uses the phrase “objectionable methods which only serve as obstacles to placing the Republic on a road of orderly development”. That, Sir, I submit is also out of order if your present ruling is correct.

Order! I uphold my decision. The words “sabotage” and “terrorism” do not appear in the Prime Minister’s amendment. When those two concepts are ascribed to any member of this House it is unparliamentary.

No member at all was referred to, Sir.

I gave my ruling on that.

Mr. Speaker, is your ruling—because I am asking you for a ruling on the hon. the Prime Minister’s amendment—that it is now in order to say of any political party or any hon. member that they are employing objectionable methods which place obstacles in the road of the Republic towards orderly development? And would it be correct for the hon. member to have said that that was what was taking place in Langa? These are the identical words.

Order! I stand by my ruling and ask the hon. member to withdraw the relevant words.

Mr. Speaker, will you then give a ruling on my submission to you? I asked you to rule that the hon. the Prime Minister’s amendment is then also out of order.

Order! I gave my ruling. I told the hon. member that in my opinion the amendment moved by the hon. the Prime Minister contains no objectionable words.

Mr. Speaker, a party must really be bankrupt if one of its spokesmen has to resort to such obviously purblind interpretations of another hon. member’s speech, as the hon. member for Bryanston has just done in regard to the speech of the hon. the Minister of Industries, Trade and Tourism. It is, after all, quite clear that the point which the hon. the Minister made in connection with education matters was specifically aimed at showing that the Opposition creates the impression that one can solve the problem of the difference in the quality of the education services for the various population groups as if by magic, by opening all schools in the country to all population groups. However, they neglect to take into account the fact that fundamentally we shall have to work hard to bring about the provision of equivalent services for all population groups over a period of time. In the directive issued by the hon. the Prime Minister to the Human Sciences Research Council to investigate education matters in the country, he made it clear that one of the guidelines to be followed was a program which had to be drawn up to ensure that education services of equal quality were set up for the various population groups, within the bounds of the economic capacity of the country. This side of the House is convinced that it is plainly simplistic and naïve to think that the throwing open of the schools in this country to all population groups will lead to anything but chaos, chaos which, in the first place, will be to the detriment of the children in those schools because such a belief simply does not take into account the fundamental differences in culture which exist and totally disregards the practical experience gained in other parts of the world, experience also gained in Africa. In the previous decade, at various conferences under the algis of Unesco, emphasis was in fact placed on the necessity for what they called the Africanization or indigenization of education to bring it into line with the special needs of each population group. This is an experience also gained in that great cultural melting pot of the world, the USA, where today it is conceded that there must be differentiation in education—and this in a system which previously had no cultural or ethnic differentiation in its set-up. Now, however, they are re-introducing of forms of mother tongue education, especially in the primary phase of school attendance in that country.

In the second place it is obvious the hon. member for Bryanston deliberately overlooked a point made by the hon. the Minister. I refer to the hon. Minister’s remark concerning the necessity for co-operation, a joining of hands, among the Whites, Coloureds and Asians in this country. It was obviously the hon. Minister’s intention that this co-operation should be seen specifically within the context of the constitutional or political scope for all these population groups that is provided for in the policy of this party in order to accommodate them as citizens of the same State, on the basis of a combination of self-determination and joint political responsibility. This constitutes recognition—as the hon. Prime Minister himself said—of the fact that at this stage the Coloured population group is actually in a political vacuum and that we must move away from this in order to assure the Coloureds in this country, along with the Whites and the Asians, of a fair and just share as joint citizens of the same State.

In the third place I wish to deal with references to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. The hon. member for Bryanston makes out that there is only one side to the story. However, we are dealing here with people who are challenging the authority of the State and who are simply rejecting and holding in contempt the orderly settling of persons in urban areas by means of influx control. The squatters were even encouraged to do wrong by persons who even transported them there and then off-loaded them. And this occurred despite the fact that the hon. Minister reached an equitable understanding with the people there both last year and the year before, when he said that he would accommodate the people already there as humanely as possible, but that in return he expected co-operation and not encouragement on the present scale for the influx of persons for whom there is no work or housing. If we in this country were not to co-operate and purposefully prevent our instrument for creating order, namely influx control, from being undermined and criticized, we should in fact cause the greatest misery and detriment to those persons who are being misused in order to undermine this policy.

I should now like to discuss the point made by the hon. the Prime Minister at the very beginning of his speech in this debate when he referred to our remarkable election results. I would like to emphasize that the NP’s election victory in April this year is an unusual and unique achievement in history in the fight of experience of Western democracy. I do not think that a single party in the Western democracy has ever achieved such an feat, by remaining in power continuously for almost three and a half decades, and still being re-elected by a majority of more than two-thirds. This was achieved after no fewer than nine separate elections. Even Mackenzie King, with his great achievement in Canada in the ’thirties and ’forties, did not equal this achievement. It is worth considering that this party has again been elected to office after a period of uninterrupted government never before experienced in the Western democracy. Then, too, the result is also remarkable because we accomplished in this election by far the best result ever achieved in the history of South African politics by a new Prime Minister in the first election contested by his party under his leadership and—let us be honest—after the traumatic effect which the Information affair had on the National Party and the Government, circumstances which set the hon. the Prime Minister a task more difficult than that faced by any of his predecessors at the start of their term of office. Seen against this background, too, the exceptional election victory and the success achieved is resounding proof of the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister, of his ability to straighten out his party in extremely difficult circumstances and help it through a troubled period and to give new momentum to the purposeful implementation of a policy which was clearly formulated and clearly spelt out to the electorate. It also serves as proof of his ability to build up a team and his ability to motivate the Government and his party under his leadership as the new supreme leader. It also attests to his ability to spell out his policy in detail in order to impress upon the voters the NP’s goals in handling the country’s extremely difficult problems.

There is, however, another reason why this victory is remarkable. It is well-known that in the normal course of events in a democracy, with changes in Government from time to time, certain advantages result from these changes in Government. Because this party has been in power for more than three decades it has had to do without some of the advantages resulting from changes in Government and it has had to display exceptional resourcefulness to compensate in other ways for the advantages it has had to do without, for example by way of renewal within the NP.

The first example I wish to mention is the renewal which normally occurs in the Government and in the administration when a new party comes into power. The effect is, as it were, that of a new broom. Although this party has been in power for more than three decades now and has never experienced this normal—let us call it rationalizing—effect of a change in Government, it has again been elected with a majority of more than two-thirds, which proves that it has been able, by means of internal rejuvenation and constant renewal, to compensate for the advantages which a party would usually gain by any changes in Government. Those advantages have been compensated for by internal debate and open discussion within the party, by emphasis on the rationalization of the State administration and of the system of security administration, and by the continuous revision and adjustment of its policy in the light of changing circumstances, especially with regard to the success achieved by this party as regards the developmental aspect of its policy of separate development over the past decades.

There is, however, another example of the renewal which normally goes hand in hand with a change in Government which I would like to mention here, and that is that a party which is in power usually finds that the voters compile a sort of list of complaints against it. Everything they do not like is blamed on the Government. When there is a change in Government the outgoing party is actually in the fortunate position that the list of complaints against it is cancelled out so that when it returns to power at a later date following a further change in Government, the voters have more or less forgotten their original complaints, against it, whereas a party which has been in power for more than three decades does not enjoy the advantage of this cancelling out of the list of complaints, which naturally becomes even longer. People do not forget the complaints they made against this party. The fact that this party could be returned to power again, after three decades, with this record achievement in democracy, is also proof of its ability to react in such a way that it effectively works through the complaints and frustrations which naturally build up around any party which has been in power for a long time, and by means of good government which creates confidence it convinces the voters that it still has the best claim to be re-elected.

Against this background I believe that the NP’s victory in the recent election was so much more a remarkable success, a success which illustrates the dynamism and driving force of this party, the realism of this party, and which is also a feather in the cap of its leader, the hon. the Prime Minister.

I should also like to point out, against the background of the entire atmosphere of what I could almost call a kind of self-loathing, a kind of masochistic self-torment, almost a self-disembowelment, exhibited in respect of conditions in South Africa in this debate by speakers on the other side of this House, that to counter all these lamentations about injustice, about alleged lack of freedom, about alleged oppression, about a police state and the like in South Africa, it is necessary for us to consider soberly a few facts concerning the political freedom and the essential democracy prevailing in the Republic of South Africa. Within the White population there prevails a democracy as real, as free, as vital and vigorous as anywhere else in the world. I wish to state here that there are very few other democracies in the world which would tolerate the outspokeness and even the irresponsibility displayed within this White democracy by the Opposition and the Press supporting the Opposition.

I also wish to point out that if one views these matters against the background of what is happening in Africa and against the background of the political style and tradition of states in Africa, it is also a remarkable achievement that in this country success has been achieved within every one of a large number of Black nations in establishing and making functional a free and largely democratic political system of self-determination. The establishment—the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development has already referred to this—of self-governing national states and independent states, of Black nations who previously had no really effective political self-determination, through which, in view of the events in the rest of Africa, they could freely and with a reasonable degree of democracy create self-determining constitutional systems, is in my opinion also a remarkable achievement which we must again take account of within the overall context of the criticism and the negative and destructive spirit which we have had thus far in this debate.

In addition I wish to emphasize once more, as several other hon. members on this side of the House have already done, that the NP does not begrudge the other nations and population groups in this country the self-determination and democratic rights which it claims for the Whites and will retain for the Whites—it is determined to do so. The NP is also determined to make this self-determination and democratic self-government a reality for every one of the other population groups.

However we wish to state categorically that the NP and the Government is not prepared to give this self-determination to others in such a way that it will take place at the expense of its own self-determination, the forfeiture of its own self-determination and the democratic right to self-determination of the Whites.

This is a serious and a difficult endeavour, actually a struggle, to extricate ourselves from what the hon. the Prime Minister has on occasion referred to as “the last remnants of an imperial heritage” in which a diversity of nations was combined within a unitary state and one of the population groups, namely the Whites, had absolute power. We are moving away from this by a process of emancipation which characterizes few other countries in the world. Where is there another example of a country which, for the sake of recognizing the right to self-determination and political freedom of other nations in that country, is even prepared to give up parts of that country in order to create a geographic basis for the self-determination and independence of the other nations? I think it is also fitting that we remind ourselves once again how much cause for gratitude we have, when we consider the tensions—let us be honest about this—that are inherent in the circumstances of the composition of this country. These are tensions inherent in the diversity of nations and in the cultural heterogeneity of our country, which are of a scope and intensity seldom found elsewhere in the world in other heterogenous societies. If one compares the conditions in this country with those which one finds in countries such as Northern Ireland, Lebanon and in the past Cyprus as well, and from time to time even in Belgium, and which we also encountered in Nigeria—all countries in which, within the same unitary state, a cultural heterogeneity is grouped together—I believe we can be extremely grateful for what has been achieved in this country, especially if we also emphasize that the tension in this cultural heterogeneity has been strengthened by the large-scale urbanization and modernization which has occurred here, especially since the Second World War. Then we can be proud of our record of law and order. In spite of the tensions that do exist, we can be proud of the high degree of goodwill characterizing the relations between the various population groups in this country. We can also be proud of the success—even if it certainly far from perfect—achieved with regard to the development and the modernization of those parts of our society, the population groups, which in fact form part of the Third World. Then, too, we can also be proud of the high degree of economic interdependence which has been established between these nations with their inherent potential for tension. If we also compare what has been achieved in this country with regard to housing and education, with achievements in the same fields in countries of the Third World, e.g. in South America, in Asia and elsewhere in Africa, while acknowledging that there is still considerable leeway to be made up and that we still have a long way to go—we can feel proud, especially if we take into account the short period of time within which these events have taken place. In point of fact it is only since the Second World War that this urbanization and modernization has taken place on a large and intensive scale.

I should also like to refer to what the Government has achieved in the field of education. I wish to begin by also referring briefly to the report of the HSRC in consequence of its investigation into education for all population groups in this country. At this point I should like to express my gratitude to the HSRC for three things. The first is that they succeeded so rapidly—within the remarkably short period of twelve months—in completing this comprehensive investigation. Secondly, I wish to express my gratitude for the teamwork, which called for exceptional leadership and in which educationalists with a diversity of views and orientations were involved, to carry through the investigation. Then, too, I wish to express my appreciation for the tremendously comprehensive way in which this investigation, as it was originally entrusted to the HSRC by the hon. the Prime Minister, eventually covered the entire field of education. I wish to express my conviction that this investigation will be an important milestone in the development of education in this country, not only due to a few specific decisions and actions, but also as a basis for deliberation for a long time to come. At this juncture I wish to give the assurance once again that before any changes in policy are implemented by the Government in consequence of this report, the Government will consult all educational bodies concerned.

Hon. members opposite are often quick to criticize the handling of education matters by the Government. Criticism is levelled in particular against the allegedly inadequate expenditure on education, especially as regards the non-White population groups. In the first place, I wish to emphasize once again here what I said right at the outset, namely that we have the hon. the Prime Minister’s unambiguous, clear guidelines, which he gave to the investigation team of the HSRC, and which he thereafter reiterated repeatedly, namely that it is the aim of the education policy of the Government to ensure educational services of equal quality for all population groups within the bounds of the economic and financial capacity of the country. This will remain a high priority. However, we want to be realistic and point out that it will be difficult and call for great exertion to achieve this.

When we consider the education of the other population groups, apart from the Whites, we must plead that all reasonable persons ought to take into account certain realities. One of these is that education for the Black, Coloured and Asian population groups in South Africa began considerably later than that of the White population group. This Government cannot be blamed for this because it was the case under the administration of previous Governments, before this Government came to power. We therefore are concerned here with the process of development of a community which, in the educational sphere, is still a developing community and still has a long way to go. We Afrikaans-speaking people are acquainted with this path. We have too come a long way and fought a long and weary battle before we achieved education for the Afrikaans-speaking people of a quality equal to that enjoyed by other sectors of the White population.

Here too, we must appeal to all reasonable people soberly to take into account the specific factors responsible for the relatively low expenditure figure so frequently quoted in respect of education for the non-White population groups. These factors are facts resulting from the state of development which is found in any developing community’s education, but which must be eliminated as quickly as possible and at a considerable tempo. The first factor here is that fewer teachers are available from the communities in question, because the educational system of those communities are not yet self-sufficient in the sense that they provide a sufficient number of fully-qualified persons to become teachers and that there is therefore a less favourable teacher-pupil ratio in respect of these population groups than for the more developed, one could say the First World population group, namely the Whites.

In the second place, and linked to this, there is the fact that a far larger percentage of the teachers in the Coloured, the Asian and the Black education system are considerably less well-qualified and therefore also qualify for a considerably lower remuneration than in the case of the more advanced White educational system. If one looks back at our White education system about 40 to 50 years ago, one sees that the position was that teachers with a mere standard 8 or two additional years were qualified, as is the position today to a great extent in the educational system of the lesser developed population groups.

A third reason for the difference in expenditure is that in the educational systems of the various non-White population groups, a far greater percentage of the pupils are at primary school than at secondary school, and the general expenditure on primary schools is considerably lower than that on secondary schools.

As against this I also wish to recall the spectacular growth rate, a rate which is a pointer to the earnest endeavour of this Government to bridge and eliminate this gap, this discrepancy in the quality of educational services. As regards Whites together with the Coloureds and Asians—let us take them as one group for this purpose—there are at present about 1 million pupils from each of the two groups at school. This means that among Whites 25% and among Asians and Coloureds together, 29% of the total population group is at school. If we look at the various Black nations, there are 3½ million of them at school. It is interesting to note that this means that 21% of the children of the total Black population groups involved are at school, lilis is a very favourable comparison considering the state of development of the Black population groups, if one sets this 21% against the 25% of Whites and the 29% of Coloureds and Asians, especially, too, if we bear in mind that when the National Party Government took over the control of education for Blacks in 1950, only 8% of the total Black population was at school.

Then, too, I wish to refer to the dramatic growth in both the percentage and the number of pupils in the other population groups at secondary school level, which attests to of how the system is progressing, how it takes more pupils further and allows them to progress to a high level and qualify. During the past decade the number of Black pupils at secondary schools has increased fivefold, from 120 000 to 600 000, and the projection for the following decade points to a veritable explosion at secondary level. As regards the Asians and the Coloureds, the same fivefold growth, although over a long period, in other words two decades, was also maintained. In addition, this system provided for a tremendous increase in the number of pupils qualifying for the school-leaving certificate, so much so that every year for three years running there was almost a doubling of the number of pupils enrolling with the Department of Education and Training for school-leaving certificates, before the problems began in the schools in 1976.

Seen in its entirety, I also believe that we can be particularly proud of the fact that the expenditure in respect of education services for all the population groups rose by 27% in the 1980-’81 financial year in comparison with the previous financial year—a considerable increase and growth rate.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude by expressing my conviction that just as the past election set an extraordinary record among the democracies of the West in that this party was again elected to office in spite of the particularly difficult circumstances to which I referred, the following term—which this Government is going forward to meet with confidence—will be so successful, in particular in the fundamentally important and extremely difficult field of education, that at the next election we shall be returned to power with the same motion of resounding confidence to continue still further with the task in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of National Education spent the last half of his speech dealing with educational matters, which it is obviously his right to do as the responsible Minister. I am grateful for his reference to the report of the Human Sciences Research Council. He is, of course, not the only one who is looking forward to seeing this report and it is hoped it will not be too long before the report is tabled here in Parliament. I am amazed to hear that the hon. the Minister is going to make quite sure that the report and the recommendations are discussed with the teaching authorities throughout the country before any possible change of policy is considered by the Government. I would have thought that the special council and special committee appointed would have had the full confidence of the Government and the Department of National Education. I hope, in particular, that the fact that this hon. Minister, speaking as the hon. Minister of National Education, spent a lot of his time talking about education not only for Whites but for all people in South Africa, augurs well for the future. Perhaps the council and the De Lange Committee will recommend that there should be one Department of Education and I hope that the remarks of the hon. the Minister are a pointer in that direction. I hope very much that this will come true.

The hon. the Minister began his speech, as did the hon. the Prime Minister, by talking again of the election results. No matter how convuluted the argument may be, the fact of the matter is that the NP has come back to this House far worse than it has done in 11 years. If one looks at the results of 1970 and the results of 1981 one will find that this is the worst performance of the NP in any election in 11 years. The fact of the matter is that they have come back with fewer seats and that, I think, is an indication. Furthermore, there is no doubt that they had considerably reduced majorities in a great number of other seats. If we had a system of proportional representation, for example, one would not have nearly as many NP members sitting in this House. It is therefore hardly a fair reflection because they would have had fewer than 100 members—probably 96 by calculation—if such a system had been in operation. More especially, the hon. the Minister of National Education and the hon. the Prime Minister emphasized that the NP believed in democracy. They have a right to their own policy but to pretend for a moment that it can be equated with democracy is very far from the truth. The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as democratic participation in the political sphere in South Africa today. The harsh fact of the matter is that the Government, by removing voters from the common roll, for example, has strengthened its numbers in this House.

That is right.

If they had not done that, they would not be sitting here in such numbers. [Interjections.] Let me, however, go further. If all South African citizens had participated in the recent election—the 1981 election—one thing is certain, and that is that that party would have had very few, if any, members in this House. [Interjections.] That is the harsh fact of the matter. So much for democratic participation and a system of democracy. The hon. the Minister did say that this applied among the Whites alone. It will then be extended like some colonial hand-out. The fact of the matter is that if one is going to be democratic one has to allow all the people to participate in the decision-making, yet that is what this hon. Government refuses to do.

The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs made a fairly thought-provoking speech this afternoon. [Interjections.] Yes, I am actually paying him a compliment. [Interjections.] I know that is very rare, coming from me, but nevertheless I mean it quite honestly. One of the major points made by that hon. Minister and which he stressed, was the fact that this Government stands or falls by its emphasis on groups and the group process for resolving the conflict that exists in South Africa. If the hon. the Minister means that—and I am sure he does—and if he wants to be consistent, he must tell us how he is going to define groups. He must tell us whether it is going to be done on the basis of culture, on the basis of language or on the basis of race. If he is going to be consistent in applying this method, by which this Government stands or falls, there must obviously be an English-speaking group, an Afrikaans-speaking group, a Portuguese group, a Greek group and certainly a Coloured, an Asian and many, many Black groups. The reality of the situation, however, is that when it suits the Government, it emphasizes the group concept, but when it does not—i.e. when the Government needs to have its numbers buttressed—it concedes that it is necessary to include the English group and, in addition, the Portuguese group, the Greek group and many others, as long as their skins are white. That is the fact of the matter.

Yes.

So if the Government is to stand or fall by that concept, all I can say is that the Government will fall because it is not being true to the very basic principle that hon. Minister said it stood for.

I am sorry the hon. the Prime Minister is not here. I understand he has another engagement. I want to come now to the speech he made yesterday, because he made certain statements yesterday which we cannot allow him to get away with. I only have time, however, to refer to a few. Firstly, his hardly subtle identification of the official Opposition with radical movements to the left was not new. We are sick and tired of hearing about that session after session, but it nevertheless remains despicable and stupid. [Interjections.] Secondly, his attack on the HNP was not surprising, considering the considerable inroads that they have made in countless Nationalist-held seats. The hon. the Prime Minister suggests that their philosophy will never succeed because it is, as he terms it, un-Afrikaans. There are others more competent than I am to respond to that assertion but what must be said is that the fundamental policies of the HNP are certainly very close to Afrikaner Nationalism. In fact, the major thrust of the HNP is nothing more than old-style Nationalist policy and attitudes. When one reads Hansard speeches made by hon. members on that side in the House before 1948, and certainly since then, one finds the same kinds of concepts used again and again, the same sort of speeches, the same sort of exclusivity. So to suggest for a moment that the HNP is “something else” is actually to admit that the NP has in itself moved, with the HNP suggesting that it retains the purity of the NP, the very soul of the NP. There are two major reasons why I think the HNP fared so well in the recent election. Firstly, their message of racial exclusivity fell upon very fertile ground, prepared as it has been by more than 33 years of Nationalist emphasis on White privilege at the expense of everyone else. Particularly in the White working communities, where the HNP did so well, the White workers have been assured, year after year, in the House and outside, that their white skin and their membership of an exclusive Afrikaner Nationalist club will be their passport to jobs and promotion. Now they have found that it is not working anymore and, therefore, they have looked towards the HNP as their saviour, wrongly, but nevertheless.

Quote an instance.

It was done again and again; the hon. member can read the Hansard for himself. I am sick and tired of having to listen to people quoting it. [Interjections.]

The second reason why the HNP did so well in the last election, which is quite clear to anyone who has surveyed the political situation, is the vacillation of the hon. the Prime Minister and his attempt to be all things to all men. The NP has lost its purity and now is an amalgamation of Verwoerdian ideology, a little bit of the old sappe, even a little PFP policy and quite a lot of the NRP mumbo-jumbo. [Interjections.] I can understand how they feel, because the Government has taken over, almost en bloc, a lot of the NRP policy, certainly the use of a confederal concept, although they now have dropped the federal aspect. It is plain for all to see. The single-mindedness of the NP is no longer there.

The hon. the Prime Minister is now walking zig-zag in the middle of the road, and the result is that the HNP has gained ground everywhere.

It is true that the hon. the Prime Minister started off very well when he took over the leadership of that party and raised many expectations among South Africans, but his basic fear of splitting the NP has left him and his party, and South Africa, floundering at a time when growing conflict in this country cries aloud for positive and courageous leadership. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister had the effrontery to state that he and his party stood for the maintenance of civilized standards and the upholding of family life. The truth is that the discriminatory practices and policies of the Government are not only degrading, dehumanizing and dangerous—and I choose my words—but the basic and fundamental policy is also an offence before God.

How can you say that? [Interjections.]

The Bible tells us that God is not mocked and that those who sow will surely reap. I want to suggest that what the Government is reaping now is what it has sown over many, many years. Let it be said, once and for all unambiguously, that racism is at the very heart of NP policy. It is true that sometimes it has a somewhat sophisticated veneer but at other times, and notably at Langa and Nyanga, it has to be seen in all its horror. I want to ask a question. What goes on in the hearts and minds of officials who have dealt so harshly with women and children in the midst of a severe Cape winter? [Interjections.] What do they think about when they pull down crude shanties, rip off plastic coverings, burn blankets and destroy bushes which are being used to cover the “wretched of the earth?” What do they think about when they harass, separate and persecute, describing their victims as illegals to be consigned somewhere else? Is there even the slightest twinge of conscience when they return to their comfortable, warm and dry homes or is it a case of: “I am only doing my job; I did not make the laws”? On this point, of course, they are absolutely right. I wonder how many hon. Ministers have been out to see for themselves what it is like. Has anybody been there? I wonder how many of the Cape members who have yet to speak in this debate have been to see for themselves what is going on there.

Not one.

Not one, Sir. These officials are absolutely right. The people responsible for the unforgivable treatment meted out to people living only five miles from here—and not only here, but in many other parts of South Africa—are the people sitting opposite.

What are we going to sing when you have finished?

It is the NP that fathered legislation which divides families, and in the midst of this the hon. the Minister has the gall to laugh! He stood up in the House and spoke for 30 minutes in this debate and did not so much as mention what is happening five miles from here. [Interjections.] Now he has to be defended by the hon. the Minister of National Education who talked about influx control. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development who has a direct responsibility, whether he has been out there and talked to those people.

I have been out there.

When?

A couple of weeks ago.

I challenge that hon. the Minister to go now …

I will go there.

… and see what is happening there and I ask him in God’s name to stop it before it is too late. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is dealing with a flash-point in South Africa, and for 30 minutes there was no response and not even a reference to what is happening there.

Disgraceful!

Let no one hide behind that department and that hon. Minister, for every member of that party is responsible for what is going on there. It is not the officials, it is the Government who sat down and worked out the laws which specify this inhuman treatment. Is it any wonder at all that people are now beginning to call into disrespect the very laws of this land themselves, when they suffer as a result of them? What a supreme irony it is that this department is called the Department of Co-operation and Development! I wonder what the Blacks who shiver in the night and are hounded early in the morning call that department. They certainly do not call it the Department of Co-operation and Development. To call it callous and destructive would perhaps be nearer the truth. Then the hon. the Prime Minister can stand up in the House and talk so piously about the maintenance of family life! Is it family life only for Whites, family life only for Nationalists or family life for everybody in South Africa? The time has come when we have to speak the words of truth in this country and in the House. A Government that claims that it bases its policies on the Christian faith has to be called to account because there is a contradiction in terms. The Government is deserving of censure because it has destroyed so many homes and so many people. I have personal experience of what the Government can do to a family. [Interjections.] As a consequence I believe that the Government is the greatest threat and danger to public order.

Hear, hear!

Allies of communism!

There is a preoccupation with, and a bragging about, their maintenance of law and order.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Bryanston entitled to say that the Government is allies of communism?

Order! What exactly did the hon. member for Bryanston say?

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken a great truth. I said that the NP was the allies of communism in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! Who are the allies?

The NP.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Why?

Sir, I did not say the “Government”; I said the “NP”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member said: “You are the allies of communism.”

Order! Did the hon. member say: “You are the allies …”?

Sir if I did say “you”, I withdraw it and substitute the words “the NP” for it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words unconditionally.

I withdraw them unconditionally, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the Government …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North said the same thing.

Sir, I said that it was true. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pinelands may proceed.

Sir, as I was saying, this Government has such a preoccupation with law and order that it has completely forgotten that one cannot have law and order in any country without justice as well. If South Africa is to avoid the inevitability of growing conflict and confrontation, I believe it has to commit itself unreservedly to two objectives. On the one hand—I think we are all agreed—there must be a new constitution for South Africa. We are all agreed, so the hon. the Prime Minister reminded us, that the present constitution cannot resolve the conflict. The hon. the Prime Minister rightly stated yesterday that all parties in this House were in agreement that the Westminster system had proved to be inadequate and that a “one man, one vote” policy in a unitary system was undesirable and dangerous.

What he did not tell us was that it was also the unanimous view of the Schlebusch Commission that Whites alone could not formulate such a constitution and that it had to have the consent of all those who would be affected that new constitution. Therefore the appointment of a White President’s Council without Black representation is a direct contradiction of this view. While I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point who emphasized that we need to have a clear understanding of the aspirations and demands of homeland and non-homeland Blacks alike, I do not agree with him that the President’s Council is the right body to obtain this information. [Interjections.] It is absurd, I believe, to expect a body which has no Black representation to make this kind of study. In fact, I think the awful truth is that we know only too well what the hopes and aspirations of Blacks are, because they have repeated them ad nauseam and one does not need another White person to tell one that.

We will never have a Government which has the consent of the governed until all groups affected by a new constitution have direct participation in the formulation of such a constitution. It is for this reason that we believe the President’s Council is an inappropriate vehicle and a time-consuming vehicle when there is no time to lose.

I said there were two objectives—with this I must close—and they should go hand in hand. Simultaneously with the formulation of a new constitution must go the creation of a climate of goodwill in this country. To put it another way, genuine reform must be introduced, not after the promoting of a constitution but now. There are certain things that must be done and there are things that the Government must stop doing. It must stop introducing ad hoc and unsystematic changes, whether they be in the field of labour or education or in any other essential area, because they are so often confusing and contradictory. It must stop removing people on ideological grounds. It must stop detaining men and women without trial and stop banning people who offer effective dissent. It has the power to detain, to incarcerate and to ban, but it does not have the power to destroy ideals and a commitment to a just society. If the Government is genuine in its desire to bring about reform in South Africa, it must systematically abolish racial discrimination. It can and must repeal fundamental laws which discriminate on the grounds of race or colour. If the Government is desirous of bringing about a society free of discrimination, it has the power to do so. It does not have to wait to be told. Why has the Government not over the past few years, and even before then, since the famous speech in the United Nations, introduced a Bill before the House to do just this?

As a test of the Government’s sincerity and purpose, I will during this session introduce just such a Bill. If the Government is genuine, it will not allow this Bill, which I shall call the Abolition of Racial Discrimination Act, 1981, to languish at the foot of the Order Paper but will make time for it to be debated so that we may know exactly where that side of the House stands on this crucial matter and where we on this side of the House stand on it.

The “Nusas Bill”.

Not at all. It is a new Bill which will challenge verkramptes like that hon. member. Having listened to the hon. the Prime Minister and other Government speakers, I have no doubt that they will resist this with the same zeal with which they have resisted genuine reform over many years. The reason for this is that, whilst they appear very strong in numbers and have limitless power to restrict, to remove and to control, they do not have the power or the will to initiate substantial reform. The crux of the matter is that the apparently all-powerful National Party is led and ruled by frightened men. The Government will dispute this and I confess that I have a deep yearning in my heart to be proved wrong, but I fear that I am right. That is why I fear for my country and its future so long as it is in the control of frightened and greedy men who are determined at all costs to maintain not the rights of minority groups but the right of the minority White group to rule forever at the expense of everyone else.

Mr. Speaker, I can only express my contempt towards the hon. member who made the reprehensible allegation against the Government that “what they do is a sin in the eyes of God”. What right has he, who brought the ideology of Black theology into this country under the cloak of the University Christian Movement, to tell us who is sinning and who is not? What gives him the right to act as arbiter and to say who are sinners and who are not? I think it is the height of presumption and I regard it with contempt.

He is 100% correct.

I also want to say that I listened with mounting anger and contempt to the hon. member for Bryanston. I do not even want to react to his speech, because he dealt with a very delicate matter like a bull in a china shop.

I want to come to the hon. member for Green Point, who also made allegations here yesterday and adopted the attitude that the members of the PFP had the monopoly on being able to judge what is Christian, what is just and what is law and order. With reference to the hon. member who spoke before him he said (Hansard, 3 August)—

I do not want to get involved in a religious argument, but according to my interpretation of the Scriptures, they contain an injunction that the Government of a country should maintain law and order in that country. It is an injunction. It is also a duty which has to be performed. That is why I consider it despicable that these people should come to us and tell us that when we prosecute the law-breakers at Langa and Crossroads, we are sinners in the eyes of God. All who were arrested there … [Interjections.] I shall deal with this whole matter in full. All who were arrested there were breaking the law by their presence there. [Interjections.] Nor have I heard hon. members on the other side encourage those people to act in accordance with the maintenance of law and order. No, they are encouraged … [Interjections.] Is it not their Christian duty … [Interjections.] I am talking now to that hon. Christian priest on the other side. Has he ever told any one of those Black people … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must address the hon. member for Pinelands correctly.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that.

You have not been asked to withdraw anything, but merely to address the hon. member correctly.

Very well, the hon. member who used to be a priest, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] I find it reprehensible that he should dictate to me …

Caiaphas.

… what religion and Christianity are and what they are not. That hon. member who used to be a priest is shamefully neglecting his duty, in this very sphere. Has he ever told those people that they are breaking the law by coming here? It is a law which was made by this Parliament. [Interjections.] These are not laws that were made to punish those people or to turn them into criminals. These laws are there for socio-economic reasons. One has only to look at the socio-economic misery in which these people live. [Interjections.] It hurts me, too … [Interjections.]

Order!

It hurts me, too, to take action against those illegal activities. Perhaps it hurts me most of all, since I am so closely involved with their happiness and with the attempts we are making to improve their quality of life there. That is why I strongly object to behaviour of the nature I have just referred to. Hon. members on the other side defend them, but these people come here knowing that in the first place, they are breaking the law …

Are they rather to die of hunger?

… and that, in the second place, there is no work for them here. In the third place, they come here to rob people who are legally here of their employment. Surely we cannot allow the distressing events which first occurred at Crossroads to be repeated here. [Interjections.]

Order!

Every day we receive stacks of letters and telegrams from people who condemn us, often in unbridled language. I want to know from those people whether they have ever gone to see the wretched conditions prevailing there.

Do you want them to tell you what lovely chaps you are?

Have they ever lifted a finger to alleviate the misery of those people? No. Many of them—and I receive the letters—perpetuate that misery because they employ people whose presence here is illegal. So they encourage them. We tried to solve this problem in a very humane manner. We know the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development as a humane person. In that respect I am not far behind him. [Interjections.]

Well, well!

We tried to solve this problem in a very humane manner. We started a special fund, and a few months ago we went with buses and taxi’s to pick up those who were there illegally and we took them to the customs gate at the Kei River, where we dropped them. [Interjections.] Those were people from the Transkei who had entered the country illegally, in contravention of an agreement we had entered into with the Government of Transkei. [Interjections.] Before that bus got back to Cape Town, most of those people had also returned. And how did they get here? We have to house them. When we make these attempts in a humane manner, the fellow-travellers of those people encourage them in their wrongdoing by giving them money to come back here.

In Claremont there are beautiful big plots. Send them there.

I repeat, the PFP does not have a monopoly on Christianity and justice. I want to tell hon. members what the Government has done at Cross roads over the past few months. We have done certain things, but we have not neglected to do other things as well. Between 26 November 1980 and 27 July 1981, we built 365 new houses, in which the legal inhabitants of Crossroads will be housed. 206 shacks at Crossroads have been demolished and 2 270 people, i.e. 450 families, have already been transferred to the new Crossroads which is being built. Does the hon. member for Pinelands still believe that our actions are sinful? Are we not allowed to give the people houses either? Why is he silent now?

Do not ask me. You will have to answer for it.

Why is he so quiet now? After all, that hon. member is the arbiter who decides what is just and what is not. Why does he not say now what is just, and why does he not compliment us?

I know more about Crossroads than you do.

There are another 2 400 shacks that have to be demolished at Crossroads. [Interjections.] The people of Crossroads are going to be housed in approximately 3 000 houses which are to be built in two phases and which are going to cost the Government more than R18 million.

Now I am talking only about those two phases. Then we are planning a third phase, if necessary. However, we cannot allow the wretched conditions prevailing at the moment to be perpetuated.

We already have a waiting list of 1 500 families who are legally in the Peninsula, but who are not living at Crossroads. Hon. members must know what gave rise to these new arrests. Because we have this long waiting list of people who are legally here with their families and who do not have houses, it was decided to replace the single quarters at Langa with family housing. About 300 of these socalled illegals were housed in those single quarters, but when they began moving out, we discovered that just over 300 men had been there illegally, but that more than 400 women had also moved in there illegally. These are the deplorable conditions we must allow to continue. We are converting those buildings precisely in order to provide accommodation for the people who are legally and permanently here. We also have another residential area which we call the KTC. This is another shocking residential area which cannot be upgraded. We are demolishing it and we are rehousing those people too at the new Crossroads. This is my answer to this accusation which is being made against us.

I want to read something else that is interesting.